[Senate Hearing 110-329]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-329
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 3093/S. 1745
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Commerce
Department of Justice
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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
33-908 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
Charles Kieffer, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex
officio) officio)
Professional Staff
Gabrielle Batkin
Erin Corcoran
Kevin Kimball
Douglas Disrud
Art Cameron (Minority)
Allen Cutler (Minority)
Goodloe Sutton (Minority)
Augusta Wilson (Minority)
Administrative Support
Robert Rich
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Page
Department of Commerce:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 1
National Institute of Standards and Technology............... 32
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office............................. 40
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administra-
tion........................................................... 117
National Science Foundation...................................... 131
Thursday, March 15, 2007
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 161
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Department of Justice:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.......... 197
Drug Enforcement Administration.............................. 209
United States Marshals Service............................... 226
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation........... 295
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.......................... 343
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 381
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Kohl, Reed, Shelby, and
Alexander.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ,
SECRETARY
opening statement of senator barbara a. mikulski
Senator Mikulski. Good morning, the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies will come to
order. This is the first time in 13 years that I assume the
chair of this subcommittee, and it's a great honor, and it's a
bit of an emotional moment.
In 1994, the power transferred to the other party, and in
those 13 years, much has changed. Our economy has certainly
changed, the challenges to our country have certainly changed,
the jurisdiction and scope of this subcommittee has expanded.
The one thing that will not change, is the enduring spirit
of bipartisanship that has always been characteristic of this
subcommittee, working as I did at VA/HUD, with Senator Bond,
and last year with my esteemed colleague, Senator Shelby. We
see ourselves as a partnership, on promoting what is right, and
so this sense of cordiality, consultation, and civility will
continue to be an enduring principle of this subcommittee.
Just to outline a few of the priorities for this year, this
subcommittee will focus on innovation, security, and
accountability. When I look at the agencies in our
jurisdiction, I see tremendous opportunities to promote
innovation that creates jobs in our own country, makes our
community more secure, while assuring accountability for the
stewardship of the taxpayers.
The funding that this subcommittee puts in the Federal
checkbook, must meet the mission and mandate of each agency,
and make a down payment on its priorities. The Commerce,
Justice, Science Subcommittee is the innovation subcommittee.
If America is going to be more competitive, we need to focus on
funding and policies to develop new technologies, that lead to
new products and new industries that create new jobs.
It is not the role of this subcommittee to pick winners and
losers. We are not an industry-controlled society. But it is to
provide the basic and applied research that results in these
new products and technology, and our agencies set the policies
that will make sure that we have an innovation-friendly
government.
Over the next several weeks, we will initially focus on
innovation. Then we will go to both Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and law enforcement to focus on security.
Underlying in all of the hearings will be questions related to
accountability, and our stewardship of taxpayers dollars.
We're looking at the National Science Foundation (NSF) that
funds promising research and cultivates the next generation of
science and engineers, particularly at the graduate level. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that
we're going to hear from later today, that funds new
technologies, to make us more competitive. And, by the way,
they win Nobel Prizes, too.
The science at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) help us better understand our planet and
provides the scientific building blocks for innovation. Nothing
gets kids more interested in science, like exploration and
discovery in outer space, and the inner space in the ocean.
We want to make sure, though, this--we have an innovation-
friendly government. NIST sets measurements and standards that
the private sector can rely on, and the world counts on. The
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office protects our intellectual
property, and the International Trade Administration (ITA)
enforces our trade agreements.
We also will be focusing on security, but that's for
another day. This subcommittee will also be looking at
accountability in terms of the expenditure of taxpayers
dollars, and to make sure that, whether it's waste, or abuse,
or poor performance, will not be tolerated. But today, we're
going to kick off our innovation hearing with the Secretary of
the Commerce Department, a long-advocate for America's role in
international trade, promoting competitiveness, and encouraging
innovation and technology.
Later on, in the second panel, we'll be hearing from the
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
and also the Director of the Patent Office.
Today, I will want to know how the budget meets the
Department of Commerce mission to foster, serve, and promote
the Nation's economy, which is a little bit rockin' and rollin'
today, but again, you know, we're a country of institutions,
and innovation. I want to know how the budget will promote the
mission, and how the Commerce Department will improve
accountability.
In the accountability areas, the three flashing lights we
have are, the NOAA satellite program, also some issues that--
the Patent Office, that I will raise from there, and also the
managing of the 2010 census.
But, today, we're very pleased to have the Secretary of
Commerce, we want to hear what he has to say, we've enjoyed
such a cordial relationship. He has been the President's link
to the business community here, and to the growing
international markets. So, we welcome him, and with that
statement, I turn to my colleague, ranking member and,
essentially, vice chairman, Senator Shelby.
statement of senator richard c. shelby
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
As Senator Mikulski said, we've worked extremely well
together, sharing many of the same goals and the expectations
of the agencies that we oversee. We go back to our House days
on the Energy and Commerce Committee, seems like yesterday, but
it was more than that, I think Senator Mikulski would note.
But I'm--Senator Mikulski, I'm pleased to serve beside you,
once again on this subcommittee. I served as chairman, and now
I serve as ranking, and you as chairman. Perhaps that'll change
someday, but until it does change, we'll be working together
either way.
Today, I also welcome the Secretary of Commerce before the
subcommittee as well as Dr. Jeffrey and Mr. Dudas. I look
forward to learning more about how the 2008 budget request will
improve the Department of Commerce, many important activities.
The Nation, Mr. Secretary, relies heavily on the Department of
Commerce that you head up, to maintain America's
competitiveness within today's foreign marketplace, and to
promote and to expand our international trade agreements.
Through the programs of the Department of Commerce, the
country is able to maintain high technical standards, as well
as staying on the cutting edge of scientific research, all of
which are fundamental, Mr. Secretary, to our Nation's
leadership in the global market. You know this well.
Overall, the Department of Commerce's budget request for
2008 is $6.5 billion. This is an increase of $90.4 million from
the funding level provided in the joint resolution for fiscal
year 2007.
Mr. Secretary, at this time, I want to also compliment you
on how well your Department, through NOAA, continue to perform
along the gulf coast in the wake of the devastating 2005
hurricane season. Last year, the committee appropriated $150
million in emergency supplemental funding through the
Department to aid recovery efforts, which you needed. A portion
of these funds went toward locating--and removing--marine
debris deposited by the hurricanes. Fishing snags, and
navigational hazards that halted maritime commerce, and pose a
threat to the fishing industry of being removed.
I've seen the images of salvage wreckage, which include
fuel storage tanks, large trees, and even sunken barges. NOAA,
with the help of partner agencies, is quickly and efficiently
clearing obstructed shipping channels and fishing grounds,
making the area safer, which is vital to the economies of
Mississippi, Louisiana, and of course, my State of Alabama.
I share Senator Mikulski's expectations for the Department
of Commerce, particularly her emphasis on accountability. We
have to be accountable. We will continue to monitor how the
Department strengthens, and improves computer security to
protect sensitive agency information, and we will continue our
scrutiny on cost overruns and schedule delays which negatively
impact NOAA's satellite program.
The Department's request includes $1.2 billion for the
Census Bureau, which--with nearly one-half of these funds
directed toward the anticipation of the 2000 census--all comes
under your jurisdiction.
The decennial census, and the comprehensive collection of
other surveys makes the Census Bureau a provider of fundamental
data to Federal, State, and local governments, financial
markets, and the public. These data sets are collected from a
wide variety of sources, including businesses and citizens.
Public trust, Mr. Secretary, in the security and
confidentiality of this information is absolutely critical to
the accuracy and the validity of the vital statistics published
by your agency.
There have been recent problems with the Department of
Commerce and other Government agencies, of not having adequate
security measures in place to protect personal data. Less than
3 weeks ago, in my home State, Birmingham, Alabama, the
Alabama--the Veterans Administration's employee laptop was
stolen, it's all been in the news. It contained hundreds of
thousands of records of personal information belonging to
veterans. This is not under your jurisdiction, I know, but this
is an incident, and that's unacceptable.
I cannot emphasize how critical it is that the data be
secure. The Census relies upon information from people
divulging this data, and public trust in the security and
confidentiality of the information being provided is absolutely
crucial to the accuracy and validity of the vital statistics
published by your agencies.
The Department must never lose sight of the duty to protect
the information it collects. I'm pleased to see the American
Competitiveness Initiative, or ACI, has continued to receive
support from the administration, through the National Institute
of Standards and Technology budget request. ACI will keep the
competitive edge that our Nation expects in the world economy
through research and innovation, by focusing on the ingenuity
of our people, and tying our capabilities to policies that will
keep us at the forefront of scientific and technical
advancement for generations to come.
The collaboration of NIST and industry and academia is an
excellent example of how this country can take advantage of
these resources, and remain competitive in an increasingly
challenging world. I believe that such collaboration can be
seen in my home State of Alabama. NIST working with the
University of Alabama at Birmingham is in early developmental
stages for standards in research related to medical devices,
for example. Such collaborations combine the expertise of our
world-class research universities, with the needs of our
Nation, and the end result is innovation and creative problem
solving.
I look forward to Dr. Jeffrey's testimony on how the work
in NIST will continue to ensure the Nation's competitive edge.
Mr. Secretary, I will also be interested in your comments
about the rationale to exclude NOAA from ACI, something that I
believe is a mistake. It seems logical to me that NOAA's vast
research capabilities be utilized in these efforts. The
strength of America's economy rests on our ability to innovate
and to use the latest in technology, to solve the problems of
today and preserve our economic and scientific leadership in
the future.
Certainly the activities of both NIST and NOAA will work to
keep the Nation competitive, and inspire the next generation of
scientists and researchers. I hope to learn more today, from
Mr. Dudas, about how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
intends to further protect American businesses in 2008 from
theft and piracy.
Intellectual property rights and its associated
enforcement, continue to have an important impact on
international trade, and the U.S. economy. Intellectual
property-based industries in this country are one of the
largest exporters in the global economy, as you know.
Protecting the value of these rights is critical if we, as
a Nation, are to continue being a world leader in innovation.
Piracy of those rights costs the American economy and the
American workers tens of billions of dollars each year.
Mr. Secretary, we look forward to your testimony, and we
appreciate your appearance here today.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
Just in terms of the rules of the subcommittee, we're going
to recognize people in their order of arrival. And, if they
have opening statements, we will put them in the record, or we
ask that they incorporate them in their early questions, so we
can move to the Secretary, and move to your questions.
Mr. Secretary, would you proceed, and then we'll go to
questions?
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, and Senator Shelby and members of the
subcommittee, I'm pleased to present President Bush's fiscal
2008 $6.55 billion budget request for the Commerce Department.
With your permission, I'd like to briefly discuss some key
elements of our budget and programs, and submit my written
testimony for the record.
We believe this is a very disciplined budget. It is focused
on the best use of taxpayer resources to advance America's
economic and innovative leadership in an increasingly
competitive world. So, we've had to make some choices regarding
where we allocate the increases, and where we focus our time.
Among the highlights of the increases are, $338 million for
the Census Bureau to ramp up for 2010, and reevaluate data
collection programs; $69 million for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to implement the second year of the
President's American competitiveness initiative, and $123
million for NOAA administration--for NOAA to fund high-priority
oceans projects.
Every agency in the Commerce Department is charged with the
same critical mission--to promote American innovation and
competitiveness, to create economic opportunities, and to
improve the lives of the American people.
I'd like to do something a little different this time,
Madam Chairman, and that is to illustrate how Commerce agencies
are fulfilling the mandate by developing, protecting,
promoting, and strategically using innovative technologies,
such as the global position system (GPS). I brought some
examples here to show how new technology can be transferred to
different bureaus within the agency, and I think it's also
representative of how one technology for one given industry can
be used in many industries around the country.
As you know, the global positioning system technology is
now so advanced, the device is as small as this cell phone. I
actually have a GPS incorporated into the cell phone. GPS has
multiple applications--the technology is used by governments,
businesses, and individuals.
The world's first atomic clock, which is the key innovation
that enables GPS to work, was invented by scientists at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. This digital
clock here, which is always exactly on time, contains
technology that synchronizes with the NIST atomic clock. Its
timing is extremely accurate, and it can adjust automatically
for changes in daylight savings time.
NIST is now pioneering new approaches to atomic
timekeeping, such as the chip-scale atomic clock. We expect
that chip-scale atomic clocks will soon be used in GPS
receivers, cell phones, and other portable electronic devices,
to greatly improve performance.
Last year alone, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
issued over 800 GPS-related patents. The Census Bureau is
adopting GPS technology to collect street coordinates, and
create a more accurate database for field personnel. It will be
incorporating GPS-equipped handheld computers like this one
into data collection operations during the 2010 census, to
improve productivity, and reduce errors. Just as a matter of
illustrating how advanced this is, in my previous role, our
sales force had laptop computers, but they were very heavy, and
very cumbersome. I find it today, it's actually quite light and
very easy to hold up, so we continue to make great advances in
this technology.
Senator Mikulski. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary, that's what the
census takers are going to have?
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. So everything will--go ahead.
Mr. Gutierrez. That's right. Whatever doesn't get sent
through the mail, will be followed up using this handheld
device. To get into it, they actually use their thumb, that
protects the device from anyone else wanting to use it.
Senator Mikulski. Could you, tell us then, what are the
security measures? Because, we're not America's snoop, we're
America's census takers.
Mr. Gutierrez. Right.
Senator Mikulski. How would it protect personal
information?
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes. This essentially will have a password
and probably the most accurate device, which is a thumbprint
for the specific enumerator.
And if you'd like, I'll pass this onto you so you can take
a look, why don't you just go ahead and give it to them. Thank
you.
Additionally, NOAA has created a network of GPS-tracking
stations that makes available to the public minute measurements
that are used to establish real estate boundaries, position
bridges and roads, and do other geo-spatial work.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) is working to
remove trade barriers to increase export sales of innovative
U.S. GPS technology, with NOAA and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). ITA
is also taking the lead to ensure a level playing field for
U.S. GPS manufacturers, as Europe enters the satellite
navigation market.
The Bureau of Industry and Security continues to monitor
and control dual-use GPS technology, and export sales, to
protect our national security while ensuring that America's GPS
industry has access to open markets.
Measuring the impact of our economy, of innovative R&D, and
technologies like GPS to reflect new, 21st century realities,
is now the subject of research by our Economics and Statistics
Administration (ESA), in coordination with the private sector.
This is an example of how we're thinking about technology, and
an example of what we believe is success, to develop one
technology that can be transferred quickly across many
industries, so we can get the benefit across our economy.
Madam Chairman, I use this GPS example to tell the story of
the Commerce Department commitment to providing America's
industries and workers with the services and tools needed to
continue to make this the most competitive country in the
world.
The President's fiscal 2008 budget request for the
Department is reflective of this commitment and more
importantly, this commitment is behind where we have made
decisions to allocate budget funds. It is carefully targeted to
programs necessary to maintain our competitive edge in this
very intense economy.
prepared statement
I look forward to working with you to achieve this
important goal, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to
discuss the President's budget, and the role of the Commerce
Department in advancing our Nation's economic strength. I feel
very privileged to be able to represent the Department and the
President at this very critical time in our history, and I'd be
pleased to hear your comments and take any questions, thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carlos M. Gutierrez
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to present the President's budget request for
the Department of Commerce. Our request of $6.55 billion in
discretionary funds reflects a balance between the administration's
commitment to promote and sustain economic growth, and the need to
restrain discretionary Federal spending. Enactment of this budget will
enable the Department to continue to support the innovative and
entrepreneurial spirit of America and increase our competitiveness in
the international marketplace.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request of $3.82 billion
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reflects
the administration's commitment to environmental stewardship. NOAA
encompasses the National Weather Service, which provides critical
observations, forecasts and warnings; the National Environmental
Satellite, Data and Information Service, which provides timely global
environmental satellite data; the National Marine Fisheries Service,
which provides stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources and
their habitat; the National Ocean Service, which measures and predicts
coastal and ocean phenomena; the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research, which provides research for understanding weather, climate,
and ocean and coastal resources; and the Office of Marine and Aviation
Operations, which operates a variety of aircraft and ships providing
specialized support for NOAA's environmental and scientific missions.
This budget request includes increases of $123 million for projects
that will advance ocean science and research, protect and restore
sensitive marine and coastal areas and ensure sustainable use of ocean
resources. These initiatives will further the administration's
commitment to make our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes cleaner,
healthier and more productive, as reflected in the U.S. Ocean Action
Plan and creation of a Cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy.
The increases for ocean science and research include $20 million to
implement the Ocean Research Priorities Plan, $16 million to support
the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and $8 million to define the
outer limits of the U.S. extended continental shelf.
The increases to protect and restore coastal and marine areas
include $8 million for management of the newly-designated Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, $10 million for restoration
of nearly 1,000 miles of habitat for the endangered Atlantic salmon in
the Penobscot River watershed, $15 million for the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program, and $5 million for the
implementation of coastal resource priorities identified by the Gulf
Coast States.
The increases for ensuring sustainable use of ocean resources
include $20 million to improve fishery management, including $6.5
million to implement the newly-reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. An
additional $3 million will support development of offshore aquaculture,
for which the administration has proposed legislation to establish
clear regulatory authority and permitting processes.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget also continues support for
development and acquisition of geostationary and polar-orbiting weather
satellites, for climate research programs, and for high priority
weather forecasting endeavors including improvements to hurricane
modeling and tsunami warning systems.
The Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) promotes the
understanding of the U.S. economy and its competitive position. Under
ESA's umbrella, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides key
objective data, including the Gross Domestic Product, on the Nation's
economic condition in a timely and cost-effective manner. The
President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $85 million for ESA
Headquarters and BEA to provide statistics that are critical to public
and private sector decision-making. This request includes an increase
of $2 million to measure the impact of research and development along
with other knowledge-based activities on economic growth.
ESA's Census Bureau is the leading source of quality data regarding
the Nation's population and economy, and the President's fiscal year
2008 budget requests $1.23 billion in discretionary funds for the
Census Bureau. This includes a program increase of $325 million for
Periodic Censuses and Programs. Of this increase, the largest component
is $281 million to continue reengineering the 2010 Decennial Census to
reduce operational risk, to improve accuracy and relevance of data, and
to contain total costs and provide for the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal.
Another program addition includes $43 million to support collecting and
processing data from the 2007 Economic Census. Also included is an $8.1
million initiative to provide quarterly and annual coverage of all 12
service sectors, matching the coverage of the quinquennial Economic
Census. This will greatly improve understanding and tracking of
economic developments in the service sector, which currently accounts
for 55 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) supports U.S.
commercial interests at home and abroad by strengthening the
competitiveness of American industries and workers, promoting
international trade, opening foreign markets to U.S. businesses, and
ensuring compliance with domestic and international trade laws and
agreements. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $412
million for ITA to serve its goals, including an increase of $1.3
million for monitoring and enforcement of compliance with Free Trade
Agreements, concluding the Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO)
negotiations and reducing market access barriers through relevant WTO
committees.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) supports America's
regions in their growth and success in the worldwide economy. The
President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $203 million for EDA to
carry out its mission effectively.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regulates the export of
sensitive goods and technologies to protect the security of the United
States. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $79 million to
enable BIS to effectively carry out this mission. This request reflects
greater efficiencies from the consolidation of administrative services
and increased use of information technology in handling export
applications, resulting in savings of $1.5 million from the President's
fiscal year 2007 request adjusted for inflation.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) focuses on
accelerating the competitiveness and growth of minority-owned
businesses by assisting with economic opportunities and capital access.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $29 million to support
MBDA's programs and expand the availability of services to minority
business enterprises.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request of $641 million for
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a part of
the Technology Administration (TA), will advance measurement science,
standards, and technology. NIST's activities provide key support for
the administration's American Competitiveness Initiative. This budget
request includes a $69 million increase for NIST laboratories, National
Research Facilities, and Construction and Major Renovations. Of these
funds, $47 million are proposed to support critical improvements to
NIST's research laboratories in Boulder, Colorado and the NIST Center
for Neutron Research in Gaithersburg, Maryland, while $22 million are
proposed to support research programs in nanotechnology, quantum
information science, climate change measurements and standards,
disaster-resilience of structures and earthquake hazard reduction.
The Under Secretary for Technology (TA/US) currently provides
policy guidance to the Secretary of Commerce and the Technology
Administration's component agencies (NIST and NTIS). Technology plays a
critical role across every sector of the economy, and the promotion of
technology in advancing America's competitiveness has become an
integrated part of the mission across the bureaus of the Department. In
keeping with this evolution, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes to modernize the Department's approach to technology policy by
elevating those activities to the secretarial level. This modernization
includes the appointment of a senior advisor in the Department's Office
of Policy and Strategic Planning who will chair a Department-wide
Technology Council to coordinate technology policy activities across
the Department in lieu of a stand-alone Technology Administration. The
request of $1.6 million provides resources for the orderly transition
of TA/US to the new coordinated structure.
The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) collects and
preserves scientific, technical, engineering and other business-related
information from Federal and international sources and disseminates it
to the American business and industrial research community. NTIS
operates a revolving fund for the payment of all expenses incurred and
does not receive appropriated funds.
For the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $19
million in discretionary budget authority. During fiscal year 2008,
NTIA estimates obligating $534 million from the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Fund to support several programs created
by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, most notably $426 million for the
Digital-to-Analog Television Converter Box Program. Following enactment
of the Call Home Act of 2006, up to $1 billion will be awarded in
fiscal year 2007 to qualified applicants in the Public Safety
Interoperable Communications Grant program, though outlays will
continue over several fiscal years.
Furthering the mission to promote the research, development, and
application of new technologies by protecting inventors' rights to
their intellectual property through the issuance of patents, the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $1.9 billion in spending
authority for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO
will use these funds to reduce application processing time and increase
the quality of its products and services. This includes $36 million to
hire new examiners to improve processing times and increase the quality
of its services. Consistent with prior years, the administration
proposes to fund the USPTO budget exclusively through offsetting fee
collections. Fee collections for fiscal year 2008 are projected to
cover the proposed increases.
The USPTO, the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement
Coordination Council (NIPLECC), and ITA participate in the Strategy
Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) initiative's goal of ending trade in
counterfeit goods. This initiative places additional intellectual
property experts in high priority markets, trains foreign government
officials in intellectual property protection, and educates foreign
publics about the importance of intellectual property. STOP! also
provides resources for harmonizing patent laws, and for supporting the
negotiation of intellectual property sections of free trade agreements.
Today, I would like to show how diverse components of the
Department contribute to innovation and competitiveness. Many people
see the Department of Commerce as a conglomerate with diverse and
distinct missions. While the Department's bureaus encompass broad, but
distinct, areas of the American economy, their core mission is U.S.
competitiveness.
Innovation is essential to competing globally and enhancing our
quality of life. This is increasingly important as political and
technological changes open access to the global economy--creating both
new markets and increased competition. The Department of Commerce is
well positioned to help America address this challenge.
There are many areas across the Department where we are working on
different aspects of competitiveness. Technological innovation is one
of this Nation's most significant competitive advantages. The
Department promotes and protects technological innovation through the
efforts of its bureaus. A prime example is Global Positioning System
(GPS) technology. Highly accurate timekeeping is a crucial element of
GPS. The Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) invented the core GPS timekeeping technology--the world's first
atomic clock--in 1949 and continues to make significant improvements in
its accuracy.
GPS is made up of more than two dozen satellites in medium Earth
orbit, which transmit signals that allow GPS receivers to determine
location, speed and direction. Since the launch of the first
experimental satellite in 1978, GPS has become a vital tool to
governments, businesses, and private citizens worldwide. Its navigation
capabilities are indispensable not only to the airline and shipping
industries, but also to many Americans who now have personal GPS
devices that they use in their cars, on bikes, and while camping and
hiking.
As the timekeeping technology improves, so do the navigation
capabilities of GPS, expanding its uses into more areas. Currently,
NIST operates the world's best standard atomic clock, NIST-F1, with an
accuracy equivalent to about one second in 70 million years. NIST
scientists are developing new atomic clocks that will soon be accurate
to one second in many billions of years. NIST also is pioneering new
approaches to atomic timekeeping such as the chip-scale atomic clock,
which could dramatically improve GPS receiver performance and impact
many other technologies.
In addition to developing technologies underlying GPS, the
Department, through the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO),
protects individual and corporate inventors of GPS technology. In
exchange for this protection, inventors are required to share
information about their inventions, allowing others to build upon them
and create further innovations. Taking GPS as an example of how well
the patent system encourages innovation, the USPTO issued over 800 GPS-
related patents in 2006 alone.
The Department, through the USPTO, also helps protect both GPS
manufacturers and the public by registering trademarks. Manufacturers
rely on trademark protection received from registering their trademarks
with the USPTO to prevent others from marketing products under their
good names. The public relies on trademarks as an assurance of the
quality and source of the products they purchase.
The Department understands that GPS and other technological
innovations are critical to making the U.S. more globally competitive.
As such, the International Trade Administration (ITA) works closely
with the United States Trade Representative to develop Free Trade
Agreements (FTA) that will eliminate duties on GPS receivers and
transmitters in all FTA countries. This will expand opportunities for
U.S. businesses, allowing them to export these GPS technologies to FTA
countries duty-free. ITA, along with NOAA and NTIA, is also taking the
lead in trade discussions with Europe to maintain a level playing field
as Europe's upcoming Galileo system enters the satellite navigation
market.
Additionally, ITA's U.S. Commercial Service assisted iSECUREtrac
Corp, based in Omaha, Nebraska, with a contract for the sale and
installation of the first ever state-of-the-art Canadian-based GPS host
monitoring system capable of serving the mission critical offender
monitoring requirements of every Canadian Province.
As trade barriers are reduced and technology transfer becomes more
seamless across the globe, GPS technology is increasingly disseminated
worldwide for both civilian and military use. The Department's Bureau
of Industry and Security (BIS) oversees and implements regulations that
clearly distinguish between military and civilian GPS user equipment to
foster economic growth in the U.S. GPS manufacturing industry while
protecting U.S. national security. These regulations define, identify,
and distinguish military receivers, encryption devices, and GPS
components with missile or certain defined airborne applications from
their civilian counterparts. These controls have helped accelerate U.S.
industry's exports to foreign GPS markets and have enabled the U.S. GPS
manufacturing industry to retain a large share of those markets.
Prior to September 1991, most GPS user equipment shipped abroad
required individual validated licenses to ensure compliance with U.S.
export control regulations. Under current regulations, civilian GPS
receivers, other satellite equipment, and associated telecommunication
equipment are allowed to be shipped, with certain restrictions, to most
destinations without a license. However, BIS has implemented stringent
regulatory controls to prevent transfer of GPS equipment to terrorist-
supporting countries, as well as to those end users known to be
involved in proliferation activities. These export license applications
are closely scrutinized and vetted in an interagency review process
coordinated by BIS.
Beyond making GPS work better, helping facilitate the success of
U.S. businesses in the global marketplace, and ensuring that the global
spread of GPS technology will not endanger our national security, the
Department utilizes advances in technology to significantly improve how
we conduct business--making our processes more efficient. For example,
the Census Bureau launched a reengineering effort in preparation for
the 2010 Decennial Census that centered on using technology to improve
processes and keep down overall lifecycle costs. GPS technology is
critical to the success of this effort. The first step involves
collecting the GPS coordinates of streets, county by county, across the
Nation. This multi-year effort will be completed in 2008, giving the
Census Bureau an accurate database for the country. This database, the
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system
(TIGER), will then allow personnel operating in the field to know their
relative position--a critical aspect of finding the right housing unit.
GPS-equipped handheld computers (HHCs) will be used for data
collection in several major field operations during the 2010 Decennial
Census. During the address canvassing operation, the HHCs will be used
to record GPS coordinates for every structure, including newly
identified addresses. Later, using GPS, the HHCs will enable staff to
conduct data collection for the non-response follow-up operation, allow
for the removal of late mail returns, and record daily payroll for all
census enumerators. The use of GPS technology will result in improved
productivity and reduced errors.
The Economics and Statistics Administration is building measures of
innovation in the economy generated by such technological advancements
as the GPS-equipped HHCs. Similarly, the Bureau of Economic Analysis is
refining its ability to measure the impact of research and development
on the economy.
In addition, NOAA uses GPS to navigate its fleet of ships; enforce
fishery boundaries in open waters to prevent overfishing; survey the
Nation's coastlines, waterways, and airport approaches; and make
improved weather forecasts. NOAA also provides a public service to the
Nation known as the National Continuously Operating Reference Station
(CORS) network. The CORS network consists of over a thousand GPS
tracking stations that enable users to refine GPS measurements down to
the centimeter level, which is particularly important for measuring
real estate boundaries, positioning bridges and roads, and doing other
geospatial work.
conclusion
The Department of Commerce's development, promotion, and
advancement of GPS technology demonstrates how the Department
successfully encourages innovation to create economic growth without
sacrificing our national safety. It also illustrates that Commerce is a
diverse group of agencies, with varied expertise and differing needs,
all engaged in a common commitment to keep the United States at the
global forefront of competitiveness and innovation. This is the way we
at the Department do business every day--working together, across
disciplines, making real, positive, and sustained impacts on the
American economy.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget effectively meets those
needs, while exercising the fiscal restraint necessary to sustain our
economic prosperity. I look forward to working with the committee to
keep our Nation's economy growing and strong, and to promote and
preserve the American people's entrepreneurial spirit.
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary
for that informative conversation and also bringing us in the
real-world capability. And, of course, it would involve the
Patent Office as well, because while people invent it, we gotta
protect it, so others don't steal it.
But, let me get right to the heart of my questions. As we
look at the President's budget request of $6.5 billion, about
one-half is in NOAA, and about one-third is in the Patent
Office, the Patent Office about $1.9 billion--we'll round it
off and say $2 billion--and there were other related agencies.
PROMOTING INNOVATION
Let's go to your promotion of innovation, you meaning
Commerce, and not you personally. How do you see, given that
you have the major agencies of NIST, NOAA, the Patents and some
other related agencies--where is it in your operation that
says, we've got to promote innovation, and I'm going to stand
sentry over it to make sure we're coming up with the kind of
research ideas, and then as industry does what it does--which
is invent--we protect them. Do you have a one-stop shop? How
does this work?
Mr. Gutierrez. Stepping back, the way we're thinking about
it, is our whole economy is really a partnership between the
private sector, the public sector, and academia. The private
sector does about two-thirds of all the research and
development (R&D) spending in the country, and that R&D in the
private sector is very focused on the development side.
The Government does about one-third, and of that one-third,
its primary focus is on the ``R,'' the research side. We tend
to do projects that are very long term in nature, that the
private sector sometimes does not have the time or the
resources, or the competitive environment to be able to take
the time to look out 10 or 15 years.
As we work on our technologies, we have to ensure that
there's a customer on the other end. And that customer, of
course, is the private sector. Dr. Jeffrey, I hope, will be
talking about members of the private sector that work inside of
NIST. And every time we open up a project in NIST, it starts
out with members of the private sector who are interested in
the developments of that project.
As part of our overall system, we have to have a patent and
trademark operation that responds to increasing demands of
businesses, and increasing demands to be responsive to issue
patents, and to issue trademarks and copyrights. In essence, we
participate in the creation of the innovation, we coordinate
very closely with the private sector, and then we enable that
innovation by having an efficient Patent and Trademark Office.
I would say innovation is embedded in every one of our bureaus.
Senator Mikulski. But you have a coordinating council?
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, we do.
Senator Mikulski. That you chair?
Mr. Gutierrez. This is a new Technology Policy Council, as
well as an Innovation Metrics Advisory Council, which we've
just started.
Senator Mikulski. Yeah, I've read about it in Technology
News, I actually read these things. It's great.
Mr. Gutierrez. We just had our first meeting, too.
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE REMEDIATION PLAN
Senator Mikulski. Well, in--first of all, I think, I know
Senator Shelby wants to talk about NOAA and why it wasn't in
the President's competitive agenda, but I'm going to take up
the issue of intellectual property, and then come back to NOAA
and its satellites.
When I read the inspector general's report of the commerce,
it talked about the major challenges of the Department, and it
said it was making improvement. But one of the things that it
raises is the fact that we have to ensure that the Patent
Office uses its authorities and flexibilities to achieve better
results--and I would say money, too, because that goes with it.
In the last 5 years, under Senator Gregg, Senator Hollings,
and Senator Shelby, and now me--we've increased Patent Office
by 50 percent. And you're close to $2 billion. Yet, there
continues to be reports about the management issues, and I know
we'll hear about it more in the testimony--the lack of
effective strategies to communicate and collaborate with
examiners, of course, the production quotas, which is the
tremendous backlog, and the lack of ongoing technical training
for examiners. I won't go through every item, but I commend to
you the GAO report, and also the major challenges.
Now, we want to hear from Mr. Dudas about this. I would
like to have a remediation plan. And I'd like to have it from
Mr. Dudas, as the Chief Executive in the agency, but I would
also ask that you personally review that remediation plan, and
get back to us in about 45 days. So, that when we do this
year's appropriation, it is about money, it is about
management, it is about leadership, and it's about protecting
our ideas.
So, if we could have a specific remediation plan that goes
along with this, I think we would go a long way.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, Madam Chairwoman, we will do that, and
we will have a plan ready for your review. I think that's an
excellent idea.
[The information follows:]
USPTO Report ``The Path to the Future, the Next Steps''
April 2007
executive summary
Fiscal year 2006 was a record-breaking year for the USPTO. Our
8,500 employees had the highest production, highest hiring, highest
usage of electronic filing and electronic processing, highest number of
examiners working from home and lowest error rate in history. While
this is a source of pride, we all recognize that even more can and must
be done. Below is a list of initiatives that are either in place, being
piloted for implementation, or are planned for implementation as
permanent improvements.
measures in place
Pendency/Productivity
The USPTO has built a performance-based culture.
Hiring 1,200 new patent examiners per year (fiscal year 2006-2012).
Improved Training for new patent examiners in a university-style
environment.
Accelerated Examination--a guaranteed complete patent examination
in 12 months.
Increased overtime authorization levels and a home office laptop
program to increase morale and encourage productivity.
Electronic Processing from start to finish.
Work Sharing with foreign patent offices to decrease U.S.
examiners' workload.
Flat Goal pilot program to allow examiners more flexibility and an
opportunity to earn increased bonuses for increased productivity.
Early Interviews between applicants and examiners--speeds the
process by focusing issues and minimizing misunderstandings.
Human Resources
Aggressive and Expanded Recruitment efforts targeting able
candidates likely to succeed in an individualized, production-oriented
environment.
Higher Pay: Special pay rate for examiners; bonuses for higher
production and quality; recruitment bonuses; and retention bonuses.
Teleworking: The USPTO has the gold standard for federal
teleworking. More than a thousand patent and trademark examiners are
working from home with hundreds more added each year.
Increased and better communication with employees through
management training, employee training and communication initiatives.
measures proposed
Applicant Quality Submissions aid and hasten examiner reviews.
Public Review of published applications.
Public Quality Submissions allow the public to comment on pending
applications with more prior art, which results in quicker, higher
quality examiner reviews.
National Workforce so USPTO employees may ``work from anywhere'' in
the United States.
Alternative approaches to examination.
University certification program to prepare students for examiner
jobs at USPTO.
The charts below illustrate the impact on the Pendency,
Productivity, and Quality measures if the Proposed Applicant Quality
Submissions are executed:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Pendency Productivity Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................................ 33.0 75.8 96.0
2008............................................................ 34.7 73.1 96.0
2009............................................................ 34.7 80.4 96.0
2010............................................................ 34.8 87.0 96.0
2011............................................................ 32.9 91.4 96.0
2012............................................................ 28.0 92.6 96.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the chart above illustrates, in fiscal year 2006 the USPTO met
90 percent of the performance goals established pursuant to the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), providing its
best record to date for achieving important measures of performance and
results.
This report lists and discusses our ongoing, planned, and
envisioned initiatives intended to address the challenges facing the
USPTO in terms of patent pendency, patent application backlog, and the
effective recruitment, training and retention of patent examiners.
addressing patent pendency and application backlog
Hiring Patent Examiners
With full access to our collected fees, the USPTO hired a record
1,218 patent examiners in fiscal year 2006, exceeding our hiring goal
by more than 200 examiners. The USPTO plans to hire 1,200 patent
professionals a year in fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2012 for a
gross total of at least 8,400 patent examiner new hires by end of year
fiscal year 2012. After attrition, USPTO staffing increased by 683 in
2006 and will increase by 3,900 over 2006-2012.
While hiring a sufficiently qualified and productive patent corps
is a critical factor in controlling pendency and reducing backlog, we
recognize that hiring alone is simply not enough. Supplemental
initiatives, including fuller participation by patent applicants as
described below, will help us attain our long-term strategic goal of
reducing patent pendency from the current 33 months to 28 months for
final disposition, by 2012.
Full Access to Fees
We are thankful that the subcommittee and your House colleagues
have ensured that our current fee schedule remains in effect for fiscal
year 2007. We are also pleased that the fiscal year 2008 budget request
gives the USPTO full access to the $1.9 billion in fees we expect to
collect. This is the fourth consecutive year that the President's
budget recommends full access to collected fees, and the USPTO
appreciates the continued Congressional support for that funding level.
The Administration is considering for submission to Congress draft
legislation that will make permanent our current fee schedule. We look
forward to working with the subcommittee toward enactment of
appropriate legislation.
Full access to user fees is needed to allow the USPTO to continue
its successful model of disciplined focus on real measures that enhance
quality and increase production, increase hiring and training, promote
electronic filing and processing, provide telework opportunities for
our employees, and improve intellectual property protection and
enforcement domestically and abroad.
Full access permits us to finance the initiatives--particularly
initiatives requiring long-term planning and commitment--necessary to
providing and maintaining reliable, functioning systems. Without
Congressional support, we would not be able to function in a business-
like manner and achieve these results.
Electronic Filing and Processing
The USPTO continues to promote electronic filing and processing of
patent applications as a means of reducing paper-based inefficiencies.
Patents implemented the Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web), a user-
friendly, Internet-based patent application and document submission
program. Prior to fiscal year 2006, less than 2 percent of patent
applications were filed electronically. After working with the public
and introducing the much-improved EFS-Web system in late 2006, a total
of 14 percent of patent applications were filed electronically in
2006--with more than one-third being filed electronically in the last
month of fiscal year 2006. We anticipate that electronic submission of
new applications will grow to more than 50 percent in fiscal year 2007.
We will work with our stakeholders to further promote electronic filing
and interaction with patent applicants.
We are developing the electronic Patent File Wrapper (PFW) that in
conjunction with current Patent Automated Information Systems will
allow for a fully automated, text-driven patent application processing
system.
Operating in today's wired world requires that the USPTO have full
electronic processing that is safe, secure and continually available to
employees, applicants and stakeholders. We will continue to work toward
that goal.
Innovative Processing
The USPTO is developing and reviewing a variety of innovative
patent processing initiatives including a new offering for the public
called ``Accelerated Examination.'' Under this program, which began
August 26, 2006, any applicant who wants or needs quick turnaround can
obtain a patent determination within 12 months. In exchange for this
quick turnaround, applicants must file a complete application, agree to
interviews and accelerated response periods, must file and prosecute
their application electronically and must provide more information
about the invention to the USPTO in the form of a prior art examination
support document. The first application to be completed under this
program was filed on September 29, 2006, and the patent issued on March
13, 2007 (less than 6 months from date of filing).
The USPTO is also cooperating in a pilot program involving peer
review of patent applications. Up to 250 applications, assigned to
Technology Center 2100, which examines computer-related technologies,
will voluntarily be placed, by the applicants, on a non-USPTO web site
for an expanded and public review by a peer group of patent users,
attorneys and academics. The pilot group of applications will include
applications filed by small entity filers. The public group will
determine and submit to the USPTO what they consider the best available
and relevant prior art. The pilot will test whether this peer review
can effectively identify prior art that might not otherwise be found by
our examiners during the typical examination process. We will also make
an evaluation as to whether this process results in measurable
examination timesavings and quality improvements.
We will continue to collaboratively work with our stakeholders to
determine if there is some combination of examination alternatives to
the current one-size-fits-all filing and examination process that would
better meet applicants' needs while providing a more efficient use of
USPTO examination resources.
The USPTO, with the help of its Congressionally mandated Patent
Public Advisory Committee (PPAC), is reaching out to the intellectual
property community to seek their input on improvements to the patent
system in all areas including, but not limited to, examination,
prosecution, enforcement and levels of patenting. Through the PPAC, we
anticipate an open dialogue with patent stakeholders and the public as
to what the Office needs to do to best protect and encourage innovation
in America. We are open to all possibilities from minor improvements to
a dramatic overhaul of patent protection, if necessary. We are looking
at a wide variety of alternative examination products from those
needing statutory changes to those that can be implemented immediately
under our existing authorities. We look forward to working with the
Congress and the public to develop these possible alternative
examination products that effectively and fairly balance the needs of
the Office and the interests of the intellectual property community to
provide a system that allows for maximum enforceability.
Our long-term strategic goal is to reduce patent pendency from the
current level of 33 months to 28 months for final disposition, by 2012.
Metrics include reduction of the initial waiting time for patent
applications (first-action pendency) in our most backlogged Technology
Centers and successful implementation of various initiatives (such as
Accelerated Examination) that ensure goal achievement by 2012.
The USPTO is both implementing initiatives and exploring strategies
that will reduce the backlog of unexamined patent applications and
improve the timeliness of a patent examination.
Applicant Quality Submissions
By shining the light inward on the USPTO, we have had the
opportunity to improve our system and offer applicants new
alternatives. As policymakers, we must also analyze how the patent
system can be improved from the outside in. Perhaps the most important
element of ensuring that patent examinations are of the highest quality
and completed as efficiently as possible is what the applicant files.
The patent applicant has the most knowledge, the most opportunity,
and the most to gain by providing the USPTO with the best possible
information about his or her invention. Unfortunately, in many cases,
applicants have expressed strong concerns about providing the USPTO
with information about their applications. In some cases, applicants
simply do not want to provide important information for fear that it
will limit the scope of the patent they may receive (though such a
limitation would be right under the facts and the law) or do not want
to do the work associated with better defining their inventions. In
some other cases, applicants or their attorneys recognize that
providing information improves quality and timeliness but fear that the
legal system unfairly punishes them with draconian penalties for
innocently omitting information. The theory is that if one provides
information, he or she must do so perfectly or potentially lose the
patent; whereas, a failure to share any information carries no
consequences.
Quality absolutely begins with the application. Nobody knows more
about the invention than the applicant. In the Accelerated Examination
Program--where the first patent issued in less than six months--the
applicant is required to submit to an interview and to provide a search
and a support document. Our limited experience with this initiative is
that both applicants and examiners believe that more written and oral
information from applicants improves quality and timeliness.
We would like to take the success of this model of applicant
quality submissions to lower pendency, raise productivity and increase
quality in all patent examinations. To that end, we believe that
applicants should be given every opportunity and responsibility to
provide more and better information to examiners about their
inventions. For such a program to be successful, policymakers must work
to ensure that more and better information does not become burdensome.
Policymakers would also need to consider how the current doctrine of
inequitable conduct may discourage applicants from fully and fairly
sharing relevant information with the USPTO.
Rule Making and Examination Reform
We believe that to effectively address and control pendency, and
reduce backlog, the USPTO needs to receive more and better-focused
information from applicants themselves and from the public at large.
The USPTO has proposed and will propose regulations and administrative
changes governing submission of patent applications that will enable
our examiners to make more efficient and informed patentability
determinations.
First, we have proposed limiting the number of continuing
applications and continued examination requests to provide an incentive
for applicants to focus their initial patent applications on their
inventive contributions. Second, we have proposed to limit the number
of claims that are initially examined in order to provide an incentive
to focus the examination process. The first and second proposals have
optional procedures which continue to provide an applicant flexibility
where the applicant may need additional continuing applications or
initially examined claims upon a showing of that need or by shouldering
additional responsibilities. Numerous comments have been received in
response to these proposals and are being carefully considered prior to
promulgation of any final rule. In parallel, we have proposed revisions
to our information disclosure requirements to focus our limited
examination resources on prior art that is most relevant to the
examination process. Additionally, we are considering a new practice
change to require applicants to conduct a pre-examination search and
provide to the Office prior to examination a report on why they believe
that they are entitled to the claims presented in view of the
information discovered during that search.
Our hope is to achieve examination reform that creates better-
focused examination and enhances information exchange between applicant
and examiner. We look forward to working with the public and Congress
to develop an enhanced examination system that effectively and fairly
balances the needs of the Office and the interests of patent
applicants, interested third parties and the general public.
Public Quality Submissions
While the USPTO currently has a procedure for submission of prior
art after publication, which allows submission by third parties within
two months of publication, the procedure does not allow explanations or
other information about the patents or publications, absent express
written consent of the applicant.
We look forward to working with Congress to develop a submission
procedure that effectively and fairly balances the interests of the
patent applicant, interested third parties and the general public.
We are also looking to provide assistance to the open source
community in their development of an open source database to provide
examiners with potential prior art.
Work Sharing
The USPTO continues to work with the world's major intellectual
property offices to study, review and implement work-sharing efforts
that promote examination efficiencies in each participating office. The
USPTO launched a trial cooperation program with the Japan Patent Office
(JPO) last summer to leverage fast-track patent examination procedures
already available in both offices to obtain corresponding patents
faster and more efficiently. It also permits each office to benefit
from work previously done by the other office, in turn reducing
examination workload and improving patent quality.
This program is a significant first step in cooperative efforts to
support United States and Japanese industries in their global patent
prosecution activities and represents the first concrete implementation
of a work-sharing arrangement between the USPTO and the JPO.
The USPTO continues to have informal discussions on expanding the
work-sharing program to other intellectual property offices, mainly in
Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The USPTO will continue its
efforts in expanding this program and will develop a coordinated
approach among the offices in order to streamline practices and
procedures.
addressing recruitment, training and retention challenges
Making USPTO an ``Employer of Choice''
Continuing to attract and retain the finest public servants is a
growing challenge. Our employees are at the heart and soul of our
intellectual property system, and we need to do everything we possibly
can to ensure they have an environment of trust, respect and
opportunity.
The USPTO has developed and implemented a variety of workplace-
friendly, family-friendly initiatives that have earned the USPTO
recognition by Business Week magazine as one of the best places in
America to launch a career and to round out one's career. The USPTO has
also been lauded by Families magazine as one of the best places in the
Washington area to work if you have a family. We will expand and
improve our workplace offerings and attributes to promote the USPTO's
image as an ``employer of choice.''
Recruitment
The USPTO's recruitment efforts are strong and nationwide in scope.
Planning efforts have culminated in targeted TV, print, radio and
Internet banner advertising, and developing a brand image, ``Examine
the Possibilities''. Additionally, in 2004, the USPTO increased career
and job fair participation and, in 2006, participated in over 180
events throughout the country. Also, in 2006, a recruitment incentive
(up to $9,900 per year for four years) was offered to computer and
electrical engineers.
A pre-employment compatibility assessment tool has been developed
and is in use for all examiners applying through USA Staffing.
We are exploring partnerships with universities to offer
intellectual property courses to science and engineering students,
develop an internship program, and train students in intellectual
property to create a ready pool of potential examiner candidates.
Internal Communication
Consistent with recommendations made by the Government
Accountability Office in 2005, the USPTO has implemented a wide variety
of initiatives to address communication issues, including a pilot
program for an Office of Internal Communications in October 2006.
The Commissioner for Patents and Deputy Commissioners host regular
Town Hall meetings with employees at all levels throughout the Patent
organization. First line supervisors are required to hold regular
employee meetings and are held accountable through their performance
plans. In 2005, monthly meetings were instituted with Patent
management, Administration management and patent union representatives,
as well as quarterly Joint Labor Management meetings.
In 2006, we also had the first ever Management Conference for all
of the USPTO's managers, numbering over 500 employees. For two days,
our managers attended sessions and collaborated on best practices of
how to manage the highly skilled and dedicated workforce at the USPTO.
On November 1, 2006, the USPTO held an agency-wide celebration
event where management thanked and praised employees for their efforts
in making 2006 a record-breaking year.
Training and Development
In fiscal year 2006, the USPTO implemented a university approach to
training new examiners. The university method provides training to new
examiners in a classroom setting for eight months, rather than using
the traditional one-on-one training model. This allows us to deliver
intensive training to the newly hired examiners, leaving more
experienced examiners and supervisors to focus on quality examination
and reducing the backlog. In fiscal year 2006, 123 examiners completed
the university's eight-month program. So far in fiscal year 2007, a
total of 303 new examiners completed the training, with an additional
451 examiners slated to graduate by the end of the fiscal year. To
date, 871 patent examiners are either in the Patent Academy or have
completed the eight-month program.
Patent examiner training programs have been enhanced to include
eight hours of technical training. We will work to enhance the skill
sets of examiners authorized to train others by providing formal
training to all personnel who are responsible for training new
examiners and reviewing their work.
Sixty-six patent examiners currently participate in USPTO's law
school tuition reimbursement program, with tuition assistance up to 24
credits per fiscal year. In addition, tuition assistance up to $5,000
per examiner per fiscal year is available for technical courses.
Pay and Retention
Last year, 60 percent of all patent examiners exceeded their goals
in production and received a bonus for exceeding those goals. We are
proud of their achievements. The average total compensation package
(salary plus bonuses) for patent examiners is $99,000. While the U.S.
Government's average pay grade is at the GS-8 level, the average at the
USPTO is GS-11.
All patent examiners received a 7 percent special pay rate increase
in November 2006, making their total special pay rate a 10 percent
increase.
The USPTO expects to increase productivity in patents by offering
examiners more opportunities to determine when and how they do their
work, and achieve higher bonuses. The USPTO is piloting a voluntary
flat goal program for patent examiners that builds upon the successful
system in Trademarks and moves production away from an hourly-based
system. Highlights of the program include awards of up to $5,000 per
quarter; flexibility in where work is done; and a predetermined amount
of work based on grade and docket.
In 2006, USPTO management submitted proposals to patent union
representatives for a new collective bargaining agreement that would
replace a previous agreement negotiated in 1986. Proposals include
enhanced patent examining monetary awards as well as a stand-alone
quality award.
Because more experienced examiners naturally are able to review
cases faster, and in a more accurate manner, the USPTO has implemented
a program of recruitment bonuses to hire and retain the talented
engineers and scientists we need to examine our increasingly complex
applications. We are reviewing other possible programs to help us
compete with industry for professionals in the ``hot'' technology
sectors. We want to be an ``employer of choice'' to the pool of tech
professionals.
The USPTO's fiscal year 2006 attrition rate was 10.6 percent--lower
than comparable industry averages and a significant improvement over
comparable past years. However, we believe we can further improve upon
that number. The USPTO is reviewing additional incentive programs to
recruit, retain and reward top performers. We will continue to become
more flexible to enable us to attract and retain those top performers.
USPTO Telework--the ``Gold Standard''
As we hire over 1,200 patent examiners a year, much of our human
capital focus is on recruitment, retention, a balancing of work/life
issues, less commuter time and more productivity, and the need to more
efficiently manage our space.
In fiscal year 2006, a pioneer group of 500 patent examiners
participated in the newly implemented Patent Hoteling Program (PHP).
The PHP was developed using the very successful Trademarks telework
program model. PHP is a voluntary program and provides patent examiners
the ability to work from home with complete on-line access to USPTO
resources. We will add 500 more examiners to the hoteling program each
year for the next several years. The goal of the hoteling program is to
change the boundaries of the old workplace patterns allowing for
decreased commute time, a more efficient use of office space, and even
a more balanced lifestyle for our employees. This all translates into
increased employee productivity and satisfaction, as well as higher
employee retention.
Patents is also piloting a work-at-home program for technical
support staff.
On a more long-term basis, we hope to create a workplace where an
examiner can be successful from anywhere. In this regard, three
possibilities are being investigated: (1) expanding the successful
Patents Hoteling Program (PHP) in such a way as to create a more
nationwide workforce; (2) creating remote or regional offices, or brick
and mortar presences, in different locations across the country,
selected upon a variety of factors such as where pockets of technology
may be concentrated or there is increased access to a suitable
workforce for hire; and (3) a storefront approach which, in a sense, is
a hybrid of possibilities (1) and (2). The storefront approach would
potentially provide a small-scale brick and mortar presence, or node,
which could then act as a support center for employees participating in
an expanded hoteling program.
With respect to expanding the current PHP program to create a truly
nationwide workforce, the Office is currently engaged in conversation
with Congress, OPM and GSA about addressing the present requirement
that hoteling employees physically report into the Office at least one
hour per week to maintain the Office as their official duty station.
Round-trip commuting to the official duty station for an hour plus,
which is the current requirement, results in a very unproductive day. A
modification of this requirement would permit hoteling employees to
relocate to geographic locations at further distances from the Office,
thus enhancing the Office's ability to reach out to high quality talent
pools and those individuals not interested in living in or financially
unable to live in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. If the one-
hour duty station requirement was lifted and USPTO was allowed a pilot
or demonstration program, we would expect many retired patent examiners
would consider working half-time or under the flat goal program. A
further expansion on the second possibility (2) is that we might build,
even locally, telework sites to provide employees with a brick and
mortar presence to which to report, but one which may reduce or
eliminate a great deal of their commuting time. The Office is open to
all of these possibilities, or any combination thereof, as ways in
which to better attract new employees, retain existing employees, and
actively participate in e-government initiatives.
Retirees
The USPTO takes advantage of the knowledge and skills of retirees
who have left the USPTO. The opportunities where this pool of
candidates can help us are tremendous. While some retirees have
returned as rehired annuitants, many opted to work for companies who
have contracted with the USPTO in the areas of examiner training in the
Patent Training Academy, help-desk service for our customers in our
Inventors Assistance Center, and examiner recruiting. This has allowed
the agency to free up valuable examiner resources to focus on patent
examining.
The flexible work arrangements that the USPTO provides are very
attractive and accommodating to retirees' schedules. Also, we expect
that our vision of a truly nationwide workforce will include
opportunities for USPTO retirees--including possible half-time or flat
goal programs for retirees. The BusinessWeek recognition of the USPTO
as one of the best places in America to round out one's career should
allow us to recruit retirees from other industries as well.
conclusion
This report has offered a comprehensive review of what has been
done, what is in the process of being done, and what can still be done
to further strengthen the patent system in the United States. While the
Administration is committed to pursuing and improving upon its
management initiatives and record level achievements in hiring, quality
and production, electronic tools and teleworking, some of the key
solutions to reduce pendency and optimize productivity and quality will
require Congressional action.
Senator Mikulski. And then we can match performance with
money.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. It will be your plan?
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT REVISION
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I understand--excuse me--that the announced
quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) for the country
contained a relatively large revision, we are all familiar with
this, one-half of 1 percent downward from the amount estimated
in January of this year. Such a revision has only occurred
seven times in the last 30 years. While rare, this type of
revision has impact on markets, and anticipate less volatility
in the data released from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
What procedure does the economic--Bureau of Economic
Analysis--have to help lessen the odds that similar revisions
will occur again in the future? Or will not occur?
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. In other words, I know it's--you don't have
all of the data and you're pushed to get it out.
Mr. Gutierrez. Right.
Senator Shelby. And you revise it with more accurate data.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes. Obviously it's a very complex set of
sources that we have to be able to consolidate this one GDP
number. I would say the one area that stood out as impacting
that was the service industry. We know that we still have to
make progress to be able to measure services, as well as we can
measure manufacturing. We actually have $8 million in our 2008
budget to be able to measure all service industries. We're not
covering all services today.
If I had to point to one thing, and there are many things,
Senator Shelby, if I had to point to one thing that threw us
off in that quarter, it was the service number. I think we can
get better, and we need to get better, at measuring services,
given that they're over two-thirds of our economy.
Senator Shelby. You know, the Federal Reserve does a lot of
measuring of our economy. Do you have an interoperable
connection to the Federal Reserve on this? On the way you
measure production and everything? You feed them things.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. I thought you did.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, sir. We work very closely with them,
with the Office of Economic Advisors, with Treasury and with
Labor.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION'S EXCLUSION FROM
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Senator Shelby. NOAA. Last year, Mr. Secretary, the
President designated a National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of the
American Competitive Initiative Act. However, NOAA was
noticeably excluded from this program, and that's troubling. To
me, NOAA stands out as an international leader in marine and
atmospheric science, and as a cornerstone of our Nation's
research community.
NOAA's education and outreach activities appear to fall
directly in line with ACI's educational goals. Given NOAA's
diverse research--you're very familiar with it--and innovative
technology, why was this agency not recognized as a candidate
for the ACI Program, and does the Department intend to endorse
NOAA in the future to become an ACI Program?
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Senator. I think that's an
excellent question.
Technically, it's not under the umbrella of the ACI, but we
think about NOAA as very much part of our competitive
advantage.
Senator Shelby. I know that Senator Alexander is very
involved in the competitiveness issue.
Mr. Gutierrez. We do think about it as our competitive
edge. We believe that the management of our coastal marine
resources is a competitive advantage, as we look at the rest of
the world, and how they do it. It may not be under the ACI
umbrella, but we think about it as very much a part of our
competitive advantage.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL POLAR
ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
Senator Shelby. I hope you can get it under there, we'll
have to see what happens.
NOAA, again. Last year, the national polar orbiting
operational environmental satellite system--pronounce it, what,
NPOESS program--was scrutinized for its mismanagement and lack
of oversight. Now that the Nunn-McCurdy process has subsided, I
feel that the Departments of Defense and Commerce have
genuinely strived to regain control of the program, hopefully.
I'm still dismayed with the revised program plan. When I
compare the new goals with the program's original prospects, I
see that we've lost two of the six satellites, and 4 of the 13
sensors package, while adding 4 years of delay. Not to mention,
a cost increase of $4.1 billion. Why are we spending more
money, perhaps, to receive an inferior product? And how have
the ramifications for this particular program impacted the rest
of your Department's overall acquisition and procurement
activities, and to ensure that the taxpayers do not see a
situation like this again? I know, it's a big-ticket item.
Mr. Gutierrez. It is, Senator. And, I appreciate the
question, this is a very important topic. Twenty-five percent
is a tremendous overrun. Just so that you know, I have met with
the chief executive officers (CEO) of Lockheed Martin and of
Northrop Grumman as soon as we heard about this. I'd say two
big things contributes to the overrun. One is the process of
evaluating these bids. Too often, I think, we go to the lowest
bid, and not necessarily understanding that that supplier can
come back and increase the amount after we have approved it.
Senator Shelby. It's not a good way to do business.
Mr. Gutierrez. It's not.
Senator Shelby. You were the CEO of a large company.
Mr. Gutierrez. Absolutely. I used to have to go to my board
for a 10 percent overrun. And, it was a very bad day, so this
is a very bad day.
Senator Shelby. Twenty-five percent overrun is----
Mr. Gutierrez. Twenty-five percent.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Should be a wake-up call.
Mr. Gutierrez. It's 25 percent, and as you say, the scope
of what we thought we were getting has been reduced. We're
getting less than what we thought we were buying at the
beginning. It is absolutely not acceptable. A lot of it also
goes to our processes. This is Air Force, NOAA and NASA working
together. Too often, we have a handoff of individual project
timelines to the other agency. We need to have someone managing
the whole process. I think there's a lot that we can be doing,
and we are doing. I get a briefing on this probably once a week
from my Deputy, who is all over this. And we still have to stay
very close, because I don't want to have another situation
where I come back to you and say that the project is off course
again. I can assure you that this is one of the items that
rarely does the day go by that I don't think about this.
Senator Shelby. If you put your background in business to
this program, and other programs, you'll meet the
accountability standard that Senator Mikulski talked about
earlier.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Mikulski. I'm going to associate myself with the
line of questioning of Senator Shelby. We're in absolute
agreement on the fact that this has to be fixed.
Senator Reed, Senator Alexander came first--I would like to
turn to call upon Senator Alexander, noting that he has been
truly one of the leaders in our bipartisan effort to create a
framework for innovation, and implementing the National Academy
of Science report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' We're
really happy to have him on the subcommittee.
AUGUSTINE REPORT ON IMMIGRATION
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you Madam Chairman, and
Senator Shelby. I'm glad to be here with you, especially
because of that interest, and I want to thank Senator
Mikulski--there was no more enthusiastic supporter for the
Augustine report, and the work that we have done over the last
2 years than she has been.
And, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you a question about
competitiveness--and this also relates to some work the
chairman's done over time.
At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which has led our
effort to help the United States capture the worldwide lead in
computing, it has the largest new materials machine in the
world, it's the world's largest energy laboratory, the top
three people there all have green cards. Fifty of the 100
American Nobel Prize winners in physics are immigrants, or are
foreign-born. We have more than 500,000 foreign students at our
colleges, universities--all of these people are helping create
this incredible standard of living we have in this country,
creating jobs for us.
Now, when the Senate passed the immigration bill, which you
are very much a part of these days, I know, from talking with
you--we seemed to have a consensus that we ought to do what the
Augustine report, the National Academy's report describes as,
``instituting new skills-based preferential immigration
options.'' In other words, we've got 500,000 or 1 million
people coming into this country legally every year, we may have
that many illegally, if we secure the borders, that means we'll
have 1 million or more people coming in every year, and I
believe there's a consensus in the Senate that we ought to--
that we ought to make sure that we make it easier for us to in-
source brain power. We outsource jobs, we can in-source brain
power.
And, there were three provisions in the Senate-passed
immigration bill to help do that, improving visa processing,
giving a green card to doctorates, to foreign students who
received their doctorates in science, technology, engineering,
math, and if they had jobs, increasing the H1B visas for those
sorts of people coming to our country. I think Senator Gregg
also may have gotten onto the bill a provision that took a part
of the visas that are in the lottery and made those more
available.
But, what I would like to do is ask you to comment on that,
and to encourage you--since I know you're working on
immigration, that with your background--both as a business
leader, and someone who's, who I've heard speak eloquently
about the importance of immigration to our country, and who
understands it very, very, very, very well. I wonder if you can
think of more ways, as we deal with immigration this year--more
ways for us to institute skills-based preferences for people
coming to our country that will increase our brain power
advantage, which creates new jobs.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, Senator, I think there's broad
agreement on this. Many of the scientists who are driving
Chinese innovations, and Chinese industries, as well as Indian
industries were educated in the United States. We are giving
these foreign scientists the best education you can get in the
world, and then because they can't stay here, they have to go
back home and compete against our companies.
We have about 80,000 higher learning students from India
and about 60,000 from China. Essentially, our quota just will
not absorb all of them. So, the challenge here is to expand the
quota, and be willing to give more green cards, and more
residency status to these graduates. This is part of our
comprehensive reform, this is the high-skilled portion of it
that we don't talk that much about, but is perhaps just as
important as anything else.
Senator Alexander. Well, and, I guess the point of my
question is, is to encourage you in it. Because, I know you're
going to be in the middle of these debates and discussions, and
I don't think it lacks for support in the Senate. We're for it,
but we need some more creative ideas about how to do it.
Sometimes ideas fail around here for lack of the idea.
So, if you can suggest two or three other ways in the next
few months that we could beef up whatever immigration bill
passes, I'll bet you'd get a lot of support for that, and we
need to do something about the provision in the law that makes
a future Nobel Prize winner--American Nobel Prize winner--who
starts out being born in India, today we make that person
swear, before they come over here to get their graduate degree,
that they're going home, when, in fact, it's in our interest
for them to stay here. And, as we know, Chinese and Indian
universities are now recruiting, back to their own
universities, the best Chinese, Indian professors to help beef
up their competitiveness efforts.
Mr. Gutierrez. If I could add something, because I think
you're touching on something very important.
If we go back to, say, the last 50 years, some of our best
scientists came to our country during World War II from Europe
and they contributed immensely. We have the ability to bring
the best brains in the world today, and we just can't let more
time go by, because they want to do it, we can do it, there's
no excuse for not doing it. So, I appreciate your leadership on
this.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And, if I may
say, Madam Chairman, I think if we put our minds to it, and
we're creative, we could to any immigration bill that passes,
more support for those bringing in people with those sorts of
skills.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Gutierrez himself is an immigrant,
and I bet when his family came here from Cuba, they didn't know
that this was going to be a future entrepreneur that would be
the Fortune 500 corporation, and lead a major Government
agency, and had the ear of the President of the United States
any time he wanted to. So, yes, immigration is a challenge.
Senator Reed.
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION FUNDING
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
Senator Shelby.
Mr. Secretary, welcome, thank you.
The Department of Commerce plays a very critical role in my
home State of Rhode Island, I was very pleased recently when
Admiral Lautenbacher announced that NOAA was considering the
home porting of the Okeanos Explorer--NOAA's first ship of
ocean exploration--in Rhode Island. And I look forward to
working with you and the admiral to ensure this effort is
completed.
There are two issues I'd like to address, first is a
manufacturing extension partnership program (MEP)--I'm
disappointed that a cut in the program is included in the
budget. It's absolutely critical--we all say this,
manufacturing is such an important part in not only the
economy, but the fabric of every community in America, I think
we have to do more.
And second, with respect to the Economic Development
Administration (EDA), the proposal for the second year in a row
to transform core programs into a regional development account,
funded at about $170 million, to support large regional-based
development projects. It's my understanding that the existing
EDA program has received very high marks from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and independent analysts for their
assistance to local communities with respect to public works,
and economic justice, technical assistance, and I'm just
wondering why we would abandon a proven model, and adopt this
regional approach--at least propose it.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes, Senator, we're obviously committed to
it, and we're not thinking of abandoning it. We did have to
decide strategically as to where we put the funds. Do we invest
in high technology, basic research, and maintain those other
programs, as you say, which are very important--especially
EDA--where we believe we do invest to get a return? The balance
we found was with $170 million, we are trying to be more
efficient by having a regional development account, so we can
continue to contribute to these communities, while at the same
time, put money behind the long-term research.
I understand your concern, and this is a topic that I knew
would come up, because MEP and EDA are both areas that warrant
much debate. But, it was a choice that we made and we felt that
we were looking to the longer term.
Senator Reed. Well, Mr. Secretary, one of our--my
concerns--is that with a regional approach you lose focus, and
there is the tendency, I think, to--in that respect--to see
these accounts diminish, not expand. And I think we've got to
expand these accounts for the reasons you've suggested.
And one of the things that's a bit perplexing is that the
EDA proposal attempts to cut $80 million this year. A year ago
you were requesting a $40 million increase, which would suggest
that you were very enthusiastic about EDA--what's changed?
Mr. Gutierrez. Well, 2 years ago, you may recall, we were
looking at strengthening America's communities initiative,
which would have combined the block grant programs that are in
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with EDA, and so we are
actually moving more money into this model.
What we'd like to do is look at this regional development
account idea, develop a plan to make it more efficient--not
just for us, but for the users--and come back with a plan, and
share how we believe we can make it work with $170 million. We
wouldn't go ahead and execute this without at least coming back
and talking with major stakeholders as yourself.
[The information follows:]
Meeting With Senator Reed's Staff on the Efficiency of Regional
Development Accounts
Although nothing has been scheduled at this time, EDA will arrange
for a meeting with Senator Reed's office to discuss the efficiency of
Regional Development Accounts.
Senator Reed. Well, Mr. Secretary, I was actually not
impressed with the strengthening American communities approach,
which would have put EDA proposals together with HUD funding.
And, it looks like this budget--there's diminishing EDA, and
the HUD budget, too, is being squeezed hard, which is not going
to strengthen our communities. And, I think, when you go to a
regional basis it's sort of a toss-up, who gets what, and
again, I'm concerned--terribly concerned.
So, I appreciate your willingness to talk about this, but
this is something that is, again, I think we'll revisit this.
I've mentioned before, my concerns about the manufacturing
extension partnership centers. Dr. Jeffrey--Dr. Jeffrey will be
testifying later, indicated there's going to be re-competition,
because the proposed $46 million fiscal year 2008 is not
sufficient to support the National budget? Or, that's a
question I have--what is this re-competition about?
Mr. Gutierrez. We haven't really honed in on re-competition
as a solution. We obviously have to do a lot of thinking as to
how to make the $46 million go as far as possible. Understand
that that's one-third of the total amount; there's private
sector and there's local money.
But, we haven't recommended re-competition as the course of
action. Again, we'd like to go back, think through this, and
discuss it with you once we have a better plan in place.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Kohl.
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I'm wanting, also, to discuss the manufacturing extension
partnership account with you, Mr. Secretary. It's--and perhaps
you're not fully familiar with it, because your job is so
broad, so big, and has so many different pieces to it, and I
can understand that.
But, the manufacturing extension partnership has been a big
success, at a relatively low cost, at preserving and creating
more jobs in small and medium-sized manufacturing companies.
I'm very familiar with it in my State because it's been a
very active program, it's helped hundreds and hundreds of
companies--many of whom I've visited--and gotten personal
experience in seeing what they've done and listened to the
accolades expressed by management, as well as those people who
are MEP employees, go on to companies, seen what they've done,
seen the results that they've produced in terms of increased
efficiencies in these companies that have allowed these
companies--in some cases--to come back from near bankruptcy.
But, in many cases, just to continue to grow and produce sales
and profits and employment. Our manufacturing jobs, which, of
course, are critical and crucial for our economy. It's a
success story, you know? It's something that I would hope that
you would all talk about, and want to keep, at least at its
present level of funding, which is $106 million, roughly $2
million per State.
And, as you indicate, it's complemented by State funding,
as well as funding by the companies who use it. So, it's not
one of these programs that we just sort of throw money at the
wall, here at the Federal level, and hope that it may do some
good--it is funded, as well, by the States, and the companies
that use the service.
I went to a company in Wisconsin over the weekend, by
coincidence. And they're a company that is presently using the
MEP program, and they just rave about how MEP has come in and
helped them to improve the efficiency of their business.
Now, in light of that, could you say something that would
encourage us to believe that we're not going to have to go back
to the mat again this year as we did last year and got the
funding restored? Several of us Senators--and, you know, we
got--it was cut last year and we got it restored to its funding
level, and now here we come back this year, and it's cut in a
similar fashion. And if we have to, you know, we'll fight like
heck to get that funding back, and I hope, successfully. But,
it would be nice if we wouldn't have to do that. And, you know,
I'd just like to hear something from you.
Mr. Gutierrez. I understand your concern, let me just say
that. We're constantly faced--and we do go through this, pretty
much, every year--we're constantly faced with the choice of
where do we allocate the money. And we have been--especially
over the last several years--moving more and more toward what
we believe is the public sector's role, which is basic
research.
On the MEP, because we play a matchmaking-type of role, we
try to pair up private sector needs with consultants, that
perhaps we can continue to play that matchmaker role, more
efficiently, more productively, without giving up on the
program. We've got the network in place, that's not going to go
away. So, we want to keep the program going, understand that it
is operational in the sense that, these are companies that are
up and running, working with consultants, trying to get better
rates, trying to match up consultants that are more suited with
specific companies.
So, not giving up on the program, while being able to put
more money behind the long-term research. As you know, when we
make these choices, it never comes out perfectly, and there
will be those who are not satisfied with that. But, that's sort
of the thinking, and there's plenty of work that we need to do
to get inside these offices and understand, how can we serve
our customers with less money? My commitment to you is that I
will do that and I will spend time on that, and try to stretch
it out as much as possible.
Senator Kohl. I'm listening, and I'm trying to understand
and, you know, and you speak very clearly and directly, which I
appreciate. But, here's a program that works, Mr. Secretary. It
works. I'm, you know, sometimes we come to these sessions and
you make out a budget and you try and cut the fat off the bone,
which, you know--which, what we're all wanting to do, the
programs that don't work very well. But, I have not heard you
say--or anybody say--that this is not a program that works.
And when you have a program that works at a relatively
modest cost, particularly in keeping manufacturing from getting
worse. Explain to me again, I mean, again--why try to knock
this program off, you know, off its stool? It works. I'm
familiar with it in my State and other States, and again--I
don't just listen to some public relations (PR) people putting
out a release, I've visited dozens and dozens of companies that
have used the MEP program, and that it does work, in helping,
and to become more efficient by bringing in--as you know--
experts who are federally funded, at least, you know, they're
Federal employees, but they also get paid by State and--and
they come in and they do a job in making the company more
efficient and more effective and more profitable.
Well, I guess I'm--I don't want to, I don't want to ask you
to repeat what you've already said. But I--I'm surprised.
You're a person who comes from the world of business, and so do
I. And, I know you're concerned about dollars, and dollars
spent, and value return for dollars spent and how important
that is. And, I can tell you, this is a really, really good
program, and you need to be proud of it. And that's not to say,
``I'm proud of it, but I'm cutting its budget,'' because those
things don't comport. If I'm proud of it, and it's a modestly
funded program, then I'm not going to be cutting it.
And, so somewhere in your Department, somebody's not very
proud of it, and somebody thinks it's not a very good program.
And, I'm here to tell you--from my experience and my knowledge
of the program, Mr. Secretary, it is a good program. And it
deserves your sweat and effort to keep it funded at its
currently modest level.
And with that, whatever you say, I will not respond and try
to be critical, but I'd like to hear one last comment from you,
and then I'll quit.
Mr. Gutierrez. What I will say is there isn't a
disagreement that there's a concept and an idea and a model
that could work, and that has worked. We have examples of
projects where there has been a success. Not all projects have
been successful and, perhaps these are outside of your State,
or in other parts of the country. Our challenge is to focus our
money on those projects that are successful. We're trying to
cut off the tail that isn't successful, and trying to get a lot
better at putting the money behind those projects that do have
a return.
That's what I would do with the $46 million, as opposed to
the $110 million, or $105 million. What we would try to do--is
allocate the money to projects that do have a return, because
there are some that don't. I think our challenge is to identify
those, and we should have enough experience to have a better
sense of which ones those are.
I understand your concern. I don't think there's anything I
could say to convince you, but we do think about these things,
and we take up the challenge and we try to make the most of it.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Kohl. We
appreciate the rigor of your questions, and you've expressed
many of ours.
Mr. Secretary, in the interest of your time and ours, we're
not going to go to a second round of questions. We're going to
submit them--ask our colleagues to submit them in writing. And
we know that the international markets are rattled, and we have
a second panel, and we want to continue before the noon hour.
Colleagues will submit questions for the record, know that
we will have ongoing concerns raised by members. NOAA--why
isn't it in the competitive agenda? How we can put it in? How
we can make sure the satellite program is back on track, the
follow up on the patents, we'll be talking to Mr. Dudas in a
minute or two, and then also, the census, because we're
concerned about the security issues at the Census, and also the
fact that as of this moment, the Director and the Deputy have
resigned, and people are in an acting category. And, as we get
ready for 2010, which is going to come so quickly, we've got to
make sure that our census not only has the technology, but the
leadership to do it.
So, those would be the areas that I think we look forward
to following up. So, thank you.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. And, colleagues, we'll submit it for
record.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
CENSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Mr. Gutierrez. Madam Chair?
Senator Mikulski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. If I may?
Senator Mikulski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. We have named Jay Waite the permanent Deputy
Director at Census. He is permanent, and we will bring the
person who will be nominated for the Director job as soon as we
have that person.
Senator Mikulski. Well, we look forward to that and working
with our authorizers for an expeditious confirmation. So that
we're all going in the same direction.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much.
Senator Mikulski. Until we meet again.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, thank you.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM JEFFREY, DIRECTOR
Senator Mikulski. Now the Chair calls to the table, as our
Secretary departs, the Director of NIST, Dr. Jeffrey. For the
record, it is the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and also, Mr. Dudas, the head of the Patent Office.
We're really glad to see both of you. As you can hear the
things of the subcommittee, and the fact that we have such a
bipartisan commitment to innovation, and you're, you're--you're
part of the A-team on this. Both, what you provide in terms of
research, and also service to the private sector, it's a unique
way that this country operates, and then--that if we invent it,
we gotta protect it. And you know the challenges there. So,
ours is not meant to be a school-marmish hearing, but how do we
get--help you get the results that our country really needs
this minute?
So, how about if we lead off with Dr. Jeffrey, and then,
Mr. Dudas, we're going to turn to you, okay?
Dr. Jeffrey. Thank you, Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member
Shelby, and members of the subcommittee.
I am pleased to present the President's 2008 budget request
for NIST. This is a strong budget that will further enhance our
ability to support the measurement and standards needs of U.S.
industry, and universities.
NIST has a long history of being at the forefront of new
innovations, through our measurements and standards. In 2003,
the National Academy of Engineering identified the greatest
engineering achievements of the 20th century. NIST measurements
and standards were integral to the successful development and
adoption of virtually every one. Nineteen retrospective studies
of economic impact show that on average NIST labs generated a
benefit to cost ration of 44:1 to the U.S. economy.
The high rate of return results from the fact that new
measurements or standards benefit entire industries, or sectors
of the economy, as opposed to individual companies.
For example, NIST researchers recently developed new
measurement techniques that cut up to 80 percent of the cost
and time for industry to develop advanced materials. As one
industry scientist put it, ``NIST scientists are reawakening a
major element of creativity that analytical science almost
lost.''
NIST also operates world-class user facilities. Last year
approximately 2,000 researchers from 60 different industries
leveraged the NIST Center for Neutron Research, or the NCNR. A
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report describes the NCNR's
capability to image an operating fuel cell as ``a considerable
achievement,'' and ``one of the most significant analytical
advances in the fuel cell realized in decades.'' Industry
scientists have stated that the research performed at the NCNR
has allowed them to jump 5 years ahead in fuel cell
development.
To prepare for the future, NIST is working with industry to
identify critical measurement barriers to innovation,
evaluating its physical infrastructure, forming new and
strengthening existing partnerships, and updating the ways it
stimulates the knowledge transfer from its labs to industry and
academia.
The increased funding provided through the budget request
will directly support innovative advances in broad sectors of
the economy, as well as improve the safety and quality of life
of our citizens.
For example, the research initiatives will speed the
development and foster the adoption of nano-technology
products, and provide the physical measurements to ensure their
safety, accelerate the revolutionary economic potential in
exploiting unique properties of the quantum world, provide
confidence and reduce uncertainty in measurements supporting
global climate change models, reduce the risk to communities,
as they encroach on hurricane-prone coasts and fire-prone wild
land/urban interface regions, and enhance the safety of new and
existing structures from the catastrophic impact of
earthquakes.
To meet the demands for measurements at ever-smaller
scales, at faster rates, and with more accuracy, requires
excellent laboratory and user facilities. The 2008 budget
request, therefore, includes capacity and capability
improvement at both our Boulder campus, and the NCNR.
The budget request for MEP is identical to last year's
request, and is a reduction of $58.3 million from the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level. I recognize the difference in priority
between the administration and Congress regarding the Federal
funding level for the MEP program.
One thing you can be absolutely certain of--regardless of
the final appropriations, NIST will execute this program in the
most effective manner possible, to support the Nation's small
manufacturers.
No funds for ATP are requested in the President's 2008
budget. The 2006 enacted budget was consistent with the phase-
out of the program. Since the 2007 full year continuing
resolution, however, included funding for ATP, we will be
initiating a new competition.
In summary, recent NIST measurements and standards research
have enabled innovations now embedded in the IPOD, body armor--
saving the lives of domestic law enforcement officers and our
service men and women overseas--and diagnostic screening
devices for cancer patients, making their treatment more
targeted and accurate. The results of NIST research can be
found in virtually every manufacturing and service industry.
PREPARED STATEMENT
For more than a century, NIST research has been critical to
our Nation's competitiveness. The increased funding requested
for NIST will directly support innovations in broad sectors of
the economy that will, quite literally, define the 21st
century.
Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Dr. Jeffrey, and we
will be asking you questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. William Jeffrey
Madam Chair Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to present the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). This is a strong budget for NIST
and it will further enhance NIST's ability to support the measurement
and standards needs of U.S. industry and universities. The fiscal year
2008 request of $640.7 million includes $594.4 million for NIST's core
(encompassing NIST's research and facilities) and $46.3 million for the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The budget for the NIST
core represents an 11 percent increase over the President's fiscal year
2007 request and a 21 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007
continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 20) recently signed by the President
(Public Law 110-5). This funding supports NIST's mission to promote
U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement
science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic
security and improve our quality of life.
NIST's Impact on Innovation and the Economy
NIST has a long history of being at the forefront of new
innovations through our high-impact measurements and standards. In
2003, the National Academy of Engineering identified 20 of the greatest
engineering achievements of the 20th century--including automobiles,
aircraft, lasers, computers, and the internet. NIST measurements and
standards were integral to the successful development and adoption of
virtually every one. Now NIST is paving the way for the greatest
achievements of the 21st century which are still yet to be imagined.
NIST's measurement science and standards form part of the
foundation upon which innovation is built. Just as the Nation's
physical infrastructure (e.g., roads or power grid) define the Nation's
capacity to build and transport goods--the Nation has an innovation
infrastructure which defines the Nation's capacity to innovate. And
investment in long-term basic research like that done at NIST is an
integral component of the innovation infrastructure. As stated in the
National Academy of Sciences' Rising Above the Gathering Storm, ``The
power of research is demonstrated not only by single innovations but by
the ability to create entire new industries.''
NIST researchers are world leaders in their fields. They frequently
arrive at the ``cutting edge'' of science before anyone else. And once
there, they partner with industry and academia to identify and overcome
barriers that can slow or even halt the progress of new innovations.
With the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget, NIST will continue
developing the measurement and standards tools that enable U.S.
industry to maintain and enhance our global economic competitiveness.
NIST continues to meet the Nation's highest priorities by focusing
on high impact research and investing in the capacity and capability of
our user facilities and labs. This emphasis is validated by the high
rate of return to the Nation that the NIST labs already have
demonstrated. Nineteen retrospective studies of economic impact show
that, on average, NIST labs generated a benefit-to-cost ratio of 44:1
to the U.S. economy. The high rate of return results from the fact that
new measurements or standards benefit entire industries or sectors of
the economy--as opposed to individual companies.
NIST supports U.S. innovation and economic competitiveness
primarily through its measurements, standards, and national user
facilities. Recent NIST successes highlight the importance of each of
these critical components and illustrate how NIST's labs are able to
return such a large benefit to the Nation:
Measurements.--NIST researchers recently developed new measurement
techniques that allow for rapid and cost-effective assessments of
advanced materials that are used in a range of products from new
detergents to improved adhesives for next-generation electronics.
Previously, it could cost industry $20 million to develop and
understand the characteristics of one new material. With this NIST
measurement advance, the cost and time are estimated to have been cut
by 80 percent. To facilitate the transfer of this technique to
industry, NIST organized an open consortium now consisting of 23
members that are learning to use and adapt these new measurement
techniques. As a scientist from Honeywell International put it, ``. . .
NIST offers an invaluable resource to show what can be done, and how to
go about it. NIST Combinatorial Methods Center scientists are
reawakening a major element of creativity that analytical science
almost lost.''
Standards.--Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize
manufacturing. And one of the most promising nanomaterials is the
carbon nanotube. Carbon nanotubes have unique electronic and mechanical
properties that lend themselves to a variety of applications, ranging
from the development of stronger and lighter materials to nanowires and
transistors for miniature electronics. Regardless of the potential
application, the quality of the materials is paramount. Unfortunately,
current production techniques for carbon nanotubes result in products
with high levels of uncertainty in their quality and uniformity. To
address this concern, NIST is currently developing a carbon nanotube
reference material. This reference material, when deployed, can be used
by any nanotube manufacturer to validate their product's quality,
purity, and consistency and accelerate the adoption of carbon nanotubes
into more sophisticated devices.
National User Facilities.--NIST operates world-class user
facilities that benefit the entire U.S. research community. Last year,
approximately 2,000 researchers from 60 different industries across the
country leveraged the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR). One
recently developed application of the NCNR was to image the interior of
operating fuel cells to help improve the efficiency and durability of
these devices. Large and small companies involved in the manufacture or
use of hydrogen fuel cells, including General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler,
Dupont, and PlugPower, have benefited from this new capability. The
NCNR is the premier facility in the world providing this capability. A
National Academy of Sciences report describes the NIST efforts in
regards to fuel cell technologies as ``. . . a considerable achievement
and one of the most significant analytical advances in the membrane
fuel cell realized in decades. The NIST facility offers the entire fuel
cell community unique research opportunities that previously eluded
them.'' Industry scientists have stated that the research performed at
the NCNR has allowed them to jump 5 years ahead in terms of fuel cell
development.
The President recognized NIST's critical role for the Nation as
part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The ACI
describes NIST as: ``. . . a high-leverage Federal research agency that
performs high-impact basic research and supports the successful
technical translation and everyday use of economically significant
innovations.'' Under the ACI, overall funding for NIST's core, the
National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy's Office of
Science is together slated to double by 2016.
Preparing for the Future
The 21st century will be defined by technology innovations that
fundamentally change the products and services available, the way they
are manufactured and provided, and the impact on our quality of life.
These advances will arise from basic research now beginning in, for
example, nanotechnology, quantum science, and alternative energies--all
areas in which NIST has a strong and increasing focus with its
investments.
The goal of increasing physical sciences research at NIST (along
with that supported by the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Energy's Office of Science) provides a unique opportunity
to strategically establish the programs, plans, and infrastructure that
will more than double the impact that NIST has on the economy. To
prepare for the future, NIST is working with industry to identify
critical measurement barriers to innovation, evaluating the capacity
and capability of NIST's physical infrastructure, forming new and
strengthening existing partnerships, and updating the ways it
stimulates the knowledge transfer from its labs to industry and
academia.
For example, over the past year, NIST worked with over 1,000
experts from industry and universities to identify measurement barriers
to innovation in a number of critical industry sectors. Over 700
technical barriers were identified, analyzed, and documented in a
report. NIST is now in the process of working with industry,
universities, and other government agencies to address many of these
identified barriers over the coming years.
In terms of facilities, NIST has conducted a rigorous evaluation of
its laboratory capacity and capabilities on its Boulder, Colorado,
campus. This review found facilities' shortfalls in our ability to meet
both current and projected industry and university needs in a number of
important areas. Examples include the high-speed and high-frequency
measurements required for electronics, defense, and homeland security;
measurements and tests at the single atom level; and improved methods
for measuring time, an area expected to vastly improve navigation and
positioning systems. Each technical area was evaluated in terms of
necessary laboratory conditions (to include stability of temperature,
vibration, and humidity, as well as air cleanliness). As a result of
this assessment, new laboratory space to meet the nation's needs well
into the 21st century is proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget
(Boulder Building 1 Extension).
NIST also serves industry and academia by being a steward of world-
class user facilities. As part of the ACI, NIST identified two
important opportunities first called out in the fiscal year 2007 budget
and enhanced in the fiscal year 2008 budget--increased capacity and
capability of the NIST Center for Neutron Research and creation of the
NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. Both of these
facilities are designed to stimulate progress in support of our
Nation's economic competitiveness.
The ACI provides NIST the opportunity to further promote U.S.
innovation and industrial competitiveness. With focused, world-class
research and facilities, NIST will have a greater impact on the 21st
century economy than it did even over the past century.
Fiscal Year 2008 President's Budget
The increased funding provided through the fiscal year 2008 request
will directly support innovative advances in broad sectors of the
economy as well as improve the safety and quality of life for our
citizens. The following table summarizes the proposed fiscal year 2008
budget. In this table we show both the fiscal year 2007 President's
budget and the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution (Public Law 110-
5) for comparisons as different baselines.
BUDGET SUMMARY SHOWING BOTH FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST AND PUBLIC LAW 110-5 AS BASELINES
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007
Fiscal Year 2007 Continuing Fiscal Year 2008 Change Between Change Between
President's Resolution President's Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2008
Request (Public Law 110- Request and Fiscal Year and Public Law
5) \1\ 2007 Request 110-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRS (Labs).................................................. 467.0 432.8 500.5 +33.5 +67.7
CRF (Facilities)............................................. 68.0 58.7 93.9 +25.9 +35.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core Subtotal............................................ 535.0 491.4 594.4 +59.4 +102.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS (MEP + ATP) Subtotal..................................... 46.3 183.6 46.3 ................ -137.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... 581.3 675.1 640.7 +59.4 -34.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals for fiscal year 2007 do not include the 50 percent of the pay raise that was included in Public Law 110-5.
The fiscal year 2008 budget was formulated with the fiscal year
2007 President's request as the baseline. Since Public Law 110-5
provides a smaller budget for the NIST core (STRS and CRF) than the
fiscal year 2007 President's request by $43.6 million, some proposed
initiatives in fiscal year 2007 that will not receive full funding are
implicitly contained within the President's fiscal year 2008 request.
New initiatives and program increases are described in more detail
below:
Scientific and Technical Research Services (STRS)
Enabling Nanotechnology From Discovery to Manufacture (+$6
Million)
The potential market for products containing nanomaterials is
estimated at over $1 trillion by 2015. Because of their small size--a
thousand times thinner than a human hair--nanoscale products require
entirely novel ways to characterize their physical properties and fully
exploit their unique characteristics in the manufacture of new
products.
In fiscal year 2007, NIST began a major initiative to address the
measurement barriers hindering rapid development of nanotechnologies. A
new NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) has been
established that combines both research and a state-of-the-art
nanofabrication and nanometrology user facility.
The research initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2008 will build on
recent NIST advances by:
--Developing ways to measure strength, stress, strain, optical, and
electronic properties of nanostructures to improve processes
and understanding of failure mechanisms;
--Creating three-dimensional, high-resolution imaging methods that
reveal details of structure, chemical composition, and
manufacturing defects and allow researchers to view
nanostructures as they interact with their environment;
--Simulating nanoscale phenomena with computer models to allow
economical development of production methods for complex
nanodevices; and
--Producing the measurement techniques required to address the
interagency efforts to characterize nanotechnology impacts to
our health, safety, and environment.
Measurements and Standards for the Climate Change Science
Program (+$5 Million)
The climate is changing. Determining how fast it is changing, and
understanding the complex relationships between all the environmental
variables is a critical objective of the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program. Many different climate monitoring systems in space, in the
air, and on the ground are currently monitoring solar output as well as
trapped and reflected heat by the Earth's atmosphere. These systems are
operated by many countries and research groups. Establishment of
absolute calibration and standard references will allow accurate
intercomparisons of these systems, will help identify small
environmental changes occurring over many years, and will reduce
uncertainties in the data input to global climate change models.
With the proposed fiscal year 2008 funding, NIST will, working in
coordination with other agencies, develop:
--An international irradiance measurement scale to be used in
rigorously calibrating satellite light intensity instruments
prior to launch to ensure sufficient accuracy to allow valid
comparisons among results from different instruments or from
data sets taken over different periods of time;
--New instrument design strategies and quality assurance programs to
optimize accuracy and stability of satellite-based irradiance
measurement systems;
--Techniques for generating specific types of aerosols in the
laboratory, measuring aerosol optical and physical properties,
and for simulating aerosol properties that cannot yet be
measured in the laboratory; and
--A database of critically evaluated data on aerosol properties
collected at NIST and elsewhere.
Enabling Innovation Through Quantum Science (+$4 Million)
Unlike the laws of physics that govern our ``every day'' world, the
laws of physics that govern the quantum world of atoms, electrons, and
light particles are fundamentally different. These quantum particles
are able to interact in ways that according to human experience would
seem impossible. For example, a quantum particle can actually be in two
different places simultaneously.
Conceptualizing these phenomena is difficult to say the least, but
developing ways to exploit them for the development of technologically
significant innovations is even more challenging. NIST, however, has
world-class scientists who are leaders in the emerging field of quantum
information science. Three NIST scientists have won Nobel Prizes in the
last 10 years based on their work in this field. Many of the best minds
in physics today believe that applications of quantum science will
transform the 21st century just as integrated circuits and classical
electronics revolutionized the 20th century.
The proposed fiscal year 2008 initiative will build upon NIST's
significant expertise in this area, and leverage the collaborations
established in the recently created Joint Quantum Institute between the
University of Maryland, NIST, and the National Security Agency. NIST
proposes to accelerate the potential of the quantum world for enhancing
our nation's competitiveness through research into:
--Quantum ``wires'' that use ``teleportation'' techniques to reliably
transport information between the components of a simple
quantum computer;
--Quantum memory analogous to the random access memory of today's
computers to allow more complex logic operations;
--Quantum conversion processes that transfer information from one
form of quantum information to another (for example, ways to
transfer information about the quantum characteristics of an
atom to a photon); and
--Quantum based measurement tools such as optical clocks and single
electron counters.
Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities (+$4 Million)
The past few years have reminded us that both natural hazards--
including extreme winds, storm surge, wildland fires, earthquakes, and
tsunamis--as well as terrorist actions, are a continuing and
significant threat to U.S. communities. The disaster resilience of our
physical infrastructure and communities today is determined in large
measure by the building codes, standards, and practices used when they
were built. Many of these legacy codes, standards, and practices--which
have evolved over several decades--are oversimplified and inconsistent
with current risk assessments. As construction and rebuilding costs
continue to rise, there is increasing recognition of the need to move
from response and recovery to proactively identifying and mitigating
hazards that pose the greatest threats.
The proposed fiscal year 2008 initiative will, working in
coordination with other agencies, develop:
--Standard methods to predict losses, evaluate disaster resilience,
and estimate cost-to-benefit of risk management strategies at
the community and regional scales that local officials can use
to evaluate and mitigate risks via land-use planning and
practices;
--Decision support tools to modernize codes, standards, and practices
consistent with the risk;
--A validated ``computational wind tunnel'' for predicting extreme
wind effects on structures; and
--Risk-based storm surge maps for the design of structures in coastal
regions.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction (+$3.25 Million)
Many earthquakes strike without warning. Within the United States,
more than 75 million people are located in urban areas considered to be
of moderate to high risk of earthquakes. Just the economic value of the
physical structures within these regions--not including the potential
loss of life and economic disruption--is valued at close to $8.6
trillion. To address this threat Congress has provided longstanding
support for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program which
NIST coordinates across the Federal government.
This initiative will enhance the safety of:
--New structures by establishing and promoting performance-based
standards for entire building designs and by accelerating the
adoption of basic research into the model building codes,
standards, and practices; and
--Existing structures through research on actual building performance
in earthquakes; developing structural performance models and
tools; and establishing cost-effective retrofit techniques for
existing buildings.
Construction of Research Facilities (CRF)
Building 1 Extension (B1E)--Enabling Sustained Scientific
Advancement and Innovation (+$28 Million)
When President Eisenhower dedicated the NIST facilities in Colorado
in 1954, no one imagined that half a century later scientists would be
manipulating matter atom-by-atom. Such technological advances require
increasingly complex and difficult measurements--to be able to observe,
characterize, and create structures at ever smaller spatial scales. As
the structures shrink in size, small fluctuations in temperature,
humidity, air quality, and vibration begin to distort the results. We
are now at the point where laboratory conditions are inhibiting further
advances in some of the most promising areas of research for the 21st
century.
The $28 million proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget will
leverage previously proposed funds ($10.1 million) in the fiscal year
2007 budget to construct state-of-the-art laboratory space that will
meet the stringent environmental conditions required for 21st century
scientific advances. An additional $38.1 million will be needed in
fiscal year 2009 to complete the project. With a total cost of $76.2
million, the Building 1 Extension is the most cost-effective approach
to enabling world-class measurement science in support of some of the
country's most important economic sectors.
NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Expansion and
Reliability Improvements (+$19 Million)
The NCNR is widely regarded as the most scientifically-productive
and cost-effective neutron facility in the United States, and serves
more scientists and engineers than all other U.S. facilities combined.
Neutron scattering techniques, in which beams of neutrons are used as
probes to see the structure and movements of materials at the smallest
scales are critical in a wide range of applications that will define
the 21st century including nanotechnology, alternative energies, and
understanding the structure of biological molecules. Because of the
unique properties of neutrons for probing materials and their
applications to some of the most advanced technologies, a significant
shortage of neutron beam capacity and capability exists in the United
States to satisfy the demands of industry and academia.
This initiative begun in fiscal year 2007 is the second-year of a
planned 5-year program to expand significantly the capacity and
capabilities of the NCNR. The program includes the development of a new
neutron cold source together with a new hall to house the guide tube,
modernization of the control system, and five new world-class neutron
instruments. The specific fiscal year 2008 funding will complete
construction of the new guide hall.
Industrial Technology Services
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) ($46.3
Million--No Change from Fiscal Year 2007
President's Request; -$58.3 Million From Public Law
110-5)
The MEP program is a partnership between the Federal Government and
local officials to provide assistance to small and medium sized
manufacturers around the country. Surveys taken of companies 1 year
after receiving MEP assistance indicate a significant financial benefit
accrued to the individual company.
The Federal Government is an important partner in the MEP program.
Specifically, the Federal Government:
--Develops new services and programs in response to the evolving
manufacturing environment and propagates them throughout the
network;
--Evaluates and ensures high-quality performance of every member of
the network; and
--Ensures that small manufacturers remain the focus of the effort.
The above Federal role can be accomplished within the requested
budget. The reduction of Federal funds to the local centers may have to
be compensated through a combination of increased fees derived from the
benefits accrued by individual companies and cost-savings in the
operations of the centers.
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) ($0--No Change From
Fiscal Year 2007 President's Request)
No funds for ATP are requested in the President's fiscal year 2008
budget. The fiscal year 2006 enacted budget and the 109th Congress'
House mark and Senate Appropriations committee mark were consistent
with the phase-out of the ATP program. The last new awards were made in
2004 and sufficient funds were available in the carryover to complete
all awards and provide government oversight.
The fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution (Public Law 100-5)
recently signed by the President included funding for the ATP program.
NIST will work with Congress to ensure the funds are executed in the
most effective manner to promote U.S. industry's competitiveness.
Summary
Measurements and standards are the bedrock upon which any economy
stands. Our founding fathers recognized this. The Constitution assigns
the Federal Government responsibility to both issue money and to ``fix
the standards of weights and measures.'' The two are actually more
similar than they might seem at first glance.
All economic transactions rest fundamentally on trust--trust
between two parties that a given amount of something is worth a given
amount of something else. Helping to create that trust for innovative
new technologies is the common theme that runs through all of NIST's
proposed fiscal year 2008 research initiatives. Each helps build a
missing or inadequate measurement base--a rigorous, accepted way of
quantitatively describing something--that improves confidence in
scientific results or improves the quality, reliability or safety of
innovative products. Recent NIST measurements and standards research
have enabled innovations now embedded in the iPod, body armor currently
saving the lives of domestic law enforcement officers and our service
men and women overseas, and in diagnostic screening devices for cancer
patients making their treatment more targeted and accurate. The results
of NIST research can be found in virtually every manufacturing and
service industry.
For nearly 106 years, NIST research has been critical to our
Nation's current and future competitiveness. The increased funding in
the President's fiscal year 2008 budget for the NIST core will directly
support technological advances in broad sectors of the economy that
will quite literally define the 21st century--as well as improve the
safety and quality of life for all our citizens.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
STATEMENT OF JON W. DUDAS, DIRECTOR
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Dudas, why don't we welcome you, and
look forward to hear from you and your protecting intellectual
property.
Mr. Dudas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you ranking member Shelby, and Senator Alexander.
I appreciate this opportunity to share with you the things
we're doing at the USPTO, and I also recognize I have a
responsibility--and it's even clearer now--a responsibility to
the employees of the USPTO to do a better job, not only talking
about the challenges we face, but communicating the successes
that our employees have had at the USPTO. So, I really do
welcome this as an opportunity.
And with that, I think I'll just cut to the chase and say,
on behalf of the 8,500 of my colleagues at the USPTO, I'm truly
proud to report that the women and the men of the USPTO
delivered results in 2006 in, literally, record proportions.
Last year, the USPTO set 11 all-time agency-wide records,
including the highest quality in the history in trademarks, the
second highest quality in history in patents, the highest
production in history in both patents and trademarks, the
highest hiring of examiners in history, in both patents and
trademarks, the highest electronic processing, and electronic
filing in history in both patents and trademarks, and allowing
more examiners than ever before to work from home. Eighty-five
percent of trademark examiners, and 500 new patent examiners
were working from home last year.
In 2006, we were also chosen by Business Week magazine as
one of the best places in America to launch a career, and we
were featured in Business Week magazine as a premier place to
round out one's career. One of our examiners, who is 66 years
old was featured in Business Week as, again, a place to round
out your career.
And USPTO examiners not only succeeded on behalf of the
United States on protecting innovation, they succeeded
personally and professionally. Sixty percent of all patent
examiners, and 70 percent of all trademark examiners exceeded
their goals in production and quality, or production or
quality, and received an additional bonus for exceeding those
goals.
Thanks is owed, first and foremost, to these loyal and
determined employees of the USPTO, and in our office hangs a
banner, seven stories high, that says, ``Celebrating 2006, Our
Record-Breaking Year.'' We held an 8,500 person, all-hands
celebration, where senior executives served the rest of our
colleagues a thank you lunch, a well-deserved thank you lunch,
for breaking those records.
Simply put, these results would not have been possible
without this subcommittee allowing all innovators' fees to be
used to fund determination of their innovations. The years 2005
and 2006 were the first 2 years in more than 15 years, that the
USPTO operated under full funding, and the difference has been
dramatic. Since Congress passed the Government Performance and
Results Act to hold Government agencies accountable and report
their metrics, and hold them accountable, the USPTO, on
average, had only met about 25 percent of their key goals.
Under the Government Performance and Results Act, just last
year, after full funding, an appropriate strategic plan, new
methods in place, responding to some of the reports you've
mentioned, we moved to 90 percent of our goals met. There's one
we missed, we should meet it, we should be at 100 percent of
our key goals, and our overall goals, we've met 94 percent of.
In 2007, you again provided full funding, and we look
forward to working with this subcommittee, to make this a
permanent policy.
This subcommittee has helped the USPTO come a long way, but
as you point out, there are real challenges that lie ahead.
Continuing to attract and retain the finest public servants is
a growing challenge. Our employees are at the heart and soul of
our intellectual property system, and we need to do everything
we can possibly do to ensure they have an environment of
respect, and an environment of opportunity.
The Business Week magazine article I talked to before,
reported that the most favored employers in the United States--
not the average, but the most favored employers in America--are
losing about one-third of their new hires within the first 3
years of employment. The USPTO is experiencing similar
attrition in the first 3 years. And with the record hiring we
have done, that pushes our overall attrition to slightly above
what the average has been. That's something we need to, again,
focus more on, and I can share with you some of the things
we're doing.
The pendency of application also continues to be a
challenge. Despite record-level hiring, and record-level
production increases in both patents and trademarks last year--
19 percent increase in trademarks, and a 17-percent increase in
patents, in terms of production--and an already demanding
environment for examiners, we continue to receive applications
at a record that exceeds our capacity to examine. We've simply
broken records in the number of applications we've received for
over 20 years now.
The answers there lie, in large part--and I think this is
some of what we'll talk to you about in the plan--in asking for
more and better information. Not just from our examiners--we
recognize that the USPTO owes a whole lot, and that our
examiners are the finest in the world--but we need to get more
and better information from applicants themselves, and from the
public at large. And those are some of the strategies that can
increase productivity, and increase production.
To that end, I'd like to share with you that we introduced
a system of accelerated examination last year. Under this
program, for those applicants--any applicant, any technology,
from anywhere--who want quick turnaround, the USPTO now offers
a complete examination within 12 months. An applicant can
literally reduce their time to 12 months as of August 26, 2006.
In exchange for this quick turnaround, we don't ask for a
whole lot more money, but what we ask is that applicants file a
complete application. That they give us meaningful and quick
turnaround. That they file electronically, so things can be
more efficient. And importantly, they give us search reports
and information that will help our examiners become more
efficient and more proficient.
The first application to be completed under this program
will issue this month, and it will issue in less than 6 months.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity to discuss the
progress the USPTO has made, and importantly, the challenges
that we still face. I look forward to working with this
subcommittee to make the best intellectual property system in
the world even better.
Please accept my invitation--if you have an opportunity--to
come down and visit the USPTO, an open invitation to any and
all of you to meet with the examiners, to share in the success.
I can just tell you, anecdotally, the very best ideas we've had
have come from opening communication more with employees, the
people who are on the ground, doing the work, who have the very
best ideas. And I think that's where you'll find the solutions
that you're looking for.
Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Dudas, and also
Dr. Jeffrey.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon W. Dudas
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO)
operations, programs and initiatives and the President's fiscal year
2008 budget request to fund those efforts.
I first want to take this opportunity to thank this subcommittee
and your colleagues on the House side for ensuring that our current fee
schedule remains in effect for fiscal year 2007. We look forward to
working with you to make that fee schedule permanent.
We are also pleased that the fiscal year 2008 budget request gives
the USPTO full access to the $1.9 billion in fees we expect to collect.
This is the fourth consecutive year that the President's budget
recommends full access to collected fees, and we appreciate the
continued congressional support for that funding level.
Full access to user fees allows the USPTO to continue our
successful model of disciplined focus on real measures that enhance
quality and increase production, increase hiring and training, promote
electronic filing and processing, provide telework opportunities for
our employees and improve intellectual property protection and
enforcement domestically and abroad.
As we entered the 21st century, the USPTO faced a number of
challenges, all of which are well known to the subcommittee. We did not
have access to all of our fee collections, our workload in patents was
growing at record and unanticipated rates, and there existed the
perception that patent examiners did not produce high quality work
while management ignored the growing backlog of patent cases and acted
to erode employee morale. Indeed, 6 months before I entered the USPTO
as the Deputy Under Secretary, this subcommittee had communicated its
strong concerns with the agency in its report:
``The ability of the administration to formulate an adequate budget
for the PTO is complicated by two factors. First, the agency
historically has formulated an incremental budget based on the previous
year's budget, and does not provide the committee with a thorough
business plan that demonstrates how resources will be used and what
results will obtain. Second, PTO management has not been sufficiently
innovative. * * * Finally, the committee lacks full confidence in the
information provided to it by PTO management regarding its needs and
performance.'' Senate Report 107-42.
This subcommittee's concerns weighed heavily on the USPTO. As
Deputy to Under Secretary Rogan, and upon assuming responsibility for
the USPTO as Under Secretary in January 2004, I made commitments to the
administration, the Congress, our stakeholders and my dedicated
colleagues at the USPTO to address these issues. I made specific
promises, namely, that: we would make quality our number one priority;
we would control pendency by increasing production; we would ``hire
more, train better, retain better and telecommute''; we would make
patent processing fully electronic; we would protect the U.S.
intellectual property system and American interests internationally;
and we would reaffirm the USPTO's credibility within the administration
and with the Congress.
We made promises, and we have kept those promises. Thus, I am
pleased to be able to share with you today the real, measurable
successes the USPTO has achieved. The women and men of the USPTO, my
colleagues, delivered results in record proportions in fiscal year
2006. Last year, the USPTO set 11 all-time agency records, including:
highest quality in history, highest production in history, highest
hiring of examiners in history, highest electronic processing and
electronic filing in history and allowing for more examiners than ever
to work from home-saving them precious time and the rest of us space on
the roads. In 2006, we were also chosen by Business Week magazine as
one of the best places in America to launch a career. I can further
promise you that the men and women of the USPTO will not rest on our
accomplishments while we have so many things we still want to achieve.
This subcommittee has made USPTO's recent successes possible. This
is our third year operating under the new patent and trademark fee
schedule, which provides funding appropriated by the subcommittee. The
reliable fee schedule permits us to finance the initiatives--
particularly initiatives requiring long-term planning and commitment--
so necessary to providing and maintaining reliable, functioning
systems. Without your support, we would not be able to function in a
business-like manner and achieve these results.
USPTO--Percent of Performance Goals Met Under the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993
Our success has been accomplished in the following manner. We have
spent the last 4 years concentrating on meeting or exceeding objective
measures, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (See chart above).
This requires continual assessments that identify system-wide
process improvements. We use relevant metrics and measures to gauge
progress and as early warning of deviations that indicate a need for
process adjustment. Our record reflects the hard work and sound
decisions of more than 8,000 USPTO employees. We are now seeing the
results of their efforts.
Quality
We have focused our attention on improving quality. Public
confidence in the quality of our patent grants and trademark
registrations is critical. Confidence is earned, and we do not take it
for granted. At the USPTO, we believe the essential components of
quality are accuracy and consistency. We must ensure that allowed
applications meet both statutory and regulatory standards, thus
providing the certainty that enhances competition in the marketplace.
We must not allow the need for timeliness to adversely impact the
requirement for quality. Last year, despite receiving a record level of
patent applications, we achieved the highest patent allowance
compliance rate in nearly a quarter century at 96.5 percent. Our
trademark organization had a final compliance rate of 96.4 percent--the
best rate since we began measuring quality.
Human Resources
In September 2006, Business Week identified the USPTO as one of the
best places in America to launch a career. The USPTO has also been
lauded by Families magazine as one of the best places in the
Washington, DC area to work if you have a family. These results are due
in part to the fact that the USPTO seriously addressed the audit
findings involving our past human resources practices.
We are now attracting and hiring record numbers of employees--at a
rate of 1,200 new patent examiners a year. We started a new, university
style approach to training, which allows us to deliver intensive,
balanced and long-term training to newly-hired examiners. We now offer
bonuses to hire and retain talented engineers and scientists in certain
critical fields.
An achievement of which we are also proud is the number of patent
examiners who have joined their trademark counterparts in working from
home. Our 10 year old Telework program is the gold standard and has
proven to be a key quality-of-life benefit for increasing employee
morale and retention, and now 500 patent examiners per year have chosen
this route.
In 2006, we also had the first ever management conference for all
of the USPTO's 800 managers. For 2 days, our managers attended seminars
and collaborated on best practices of how to best manage the highly
skilled and dedicated workforce at the USPTO. On November 1, 2006, we
also held an agency-wide ``thank you'' event for all of the USPTO's
8,000 plus employees. Senior executives served lunch and thanked our
colleagues for making 2006 a record-breaking year. At the management
level, we also have started to implement our long-term Strategic Human
Capital Plan.
Electronic Government
Our commitment to e-Government has been unequivocal. In March 2006,
we unveiled ``EFSWeb,'' the first-ever, user-friendly, Internet-based
patent application and document submission system. Since last March,
electronic filing of patent applications has skyrocketed from the 1
percent rate of fiscal year 2005, to almost 40 percent filings today.
In other words, in less than a year, almost 40 percent of our patent
applications are now filed electronically, via the Internet. Last year,
94 percent of trademark applications were filed electronically, and we
recently celebrated receipt of electronic trademark application number
1,000,000.
International IP
On the global level, we continue spreading the word about
protecting and respecting intellectual property, both domestically and
internationally. We are fully engaged in the Bush Administration's
Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) in the fight against piracy
and counterfeiting around the world. We hold intellectual property
awareness conferences, with a focus on small-businesses, all around the
country. More than 90 percent of the attendees have rated these
programs as good or excellent, and it has been described by at least
one participant as ``the best use of my taxpayer dollars.'' Some of our
conferences focus exclusively on doing business in China, from an
intellectual property perspective.
The USPTO has the lead for the United States in discussions and
negotiations to strengthen global intellectual property protection
throughout the world. We operate the Global Intellectual Property
Academy, which offers intensive patent, trademark, copyright and IP
enforcement training for foreign government officials and private-
sector representatives from around the world. Finally, we have placed
intellectual property experts in Brazil, China, Egypt, India and
Thailand, to advocate for improved intellectual property protection
that benefits all, including our American businesses.
Production and Productivity
The rate of filing of applications in the United States continues
to break records every year. The USPTO's core business continues to
grow at a steady pace. In fiscal year 2006 we received 419,760 UPR
(utility, plant and reissue) patent applications and expect an increase
of 7 percent in fiscal year 2007 followed by an anticipated annual
increase of 8 percent in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012. In
the trademarks area, we received 354,775 applications and expect an
increase of 6 percent in fiscal year 2007 followed by an 8 percent
increase in fiscal year 2008. Trademark applications are anticipated to
increase by 7 percent in fiscal year 2009 and increase 6 percent each
year from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012.
This is a strong sign of growing innovation and investment in the
United States, but it also represents potential strains on the system.
The USPTO has the highest productivity of any major IP office in the
world. The USPTO processes and examines more patent applications and
more trademark applications than any other office in the world. Based
on the latest statistics, the USPTO also has the lowest pendency of any
other major office in the world. In addition, 2006 was a record year
for production--from 2005 to 2006 production increased 18 percent in
trademarks and 16 percent in patents.
Even with the success we have had increasing production and hiring,
the volume of patent applications continues to outpace our capacity.
Even with 1,200 new hires each year through 2012, pendency, which
averages about 31 months now, will be nearly 39 months in 2012. Of
course, hiring is critical--without that plan, pendency would be more
than 50 months in 2012. However, as this subcommittee has noted, hiring
alone is simply not enough. As a result, the USPTO's Strategic Plan
released this year places a high emphasis on increasing productivity in
the USPTO and in patent systems throughout the world by leveraging the
work that is being done in other offices, by applicants themselves and
from interested parties in the public.
While increasing productivity, we must take into account the
incredible demands placed upon our examiners to issue on the highest
quality results in an increasingly demanding world. The inventions for
which patent protection is sought are becoming more technically
complex. Complex technologies take more time to examine and make up an
ever-greater percentage of applications. For the average application,
an examiner now has to review 50 percent more claims and 300 percent
more background literature. At the same time, the mix of more
experienced, more productive examiners to less experienced, less
productive examiner varies every year, as does the production loss to
train new examiners. For these reasons, patent productivity (the number
of patent applications examined per examiner per year) has been
steadily decreasing from 101 in 1993 to 78 in 2006.
These are challenges that we can and will overcome. In trademarks,
the USPTO increased productivity by 7 percent in fiscal year 2006 after
negotiating a new performance plan. Although the trademark examiners
union expressed good faith concerns that the vast majority of trademark
examiners would fail under increased production and quality
requirements, examiners flourished when given this opportunity to
succeed--70 percent of trademark examiners earned a production bonus
and the number of trademark examiners who received an ``Outstanding''
or ``Commendable'' rating grew by nearly 10 percent.
We are adopting a number of strategies in the patents area as well.
The USPTO expects to increase productivity in patents by offering
examiners more opportunities to determine their workload and achieve
higher bonuses. The USPTO is piloting a voluntary flat goals program
for patent examiners that builds upon the successful system in
trademarks.
We are trying a variety of innovations, including a new offering
for the public, called ``Accelerated Examination.'' Under this program,
which began August 26, 2006, for those applicants who need or want
quick turn around, the USPTO offers a complete examination within 12
months. In exchange for this quick turn around, applicants must file a
complete application, agree to telephone interviews and accelerated
response periods, must file and prosecute their application
electronically and must provide more information about the application
to the USPTO in the form of a search and a support document. The first
application to be completed under this program was filed on September
29, 2006 and will issue on March 13, 2007 (less than 6 months from date
of filing).
While the significant growth in patent and trademark applications
indicates that innovation and entrepreneurship are alive and well, it
presents our agency with a variety of challenges. We plan to use the
following strategies to address these challenges which are included in
USPTO's fiscal year 2008 budget request.
Strategy #1: Hiring, Retention
The USPTO hired a record 1,218 patent examiners in 2006, exceeding
our hiring goal by more than 200 examiners. The USPTO plans to hire
1,200 patent professionals a year in fiscal year 2007 through fiscal
year 2012 for a total of at least 8,400 patent examiner new hires by
end of year fiscal year 2012.
Since more experienced examiners naturally are able to review cases
faster, and in an excellent manner, the USPTO has implemented a program
of recruitment bonuses to hire and retain the talented engineers and
scientists we need to examine our increasingly complex applications. We
are reviewing other possible programs to help us compete with industry
for professionals in the ``hot'' technology sectors. We want to be an
``employer of choice'' to the pool of tech professionals.
Strategy #2: Training
In fiscal year 2006, the USPTO implemented a university approach to
training new examiners. The university method provides training to new
examiners in a classroom setting for 8 months, rather than using the
traditional one-on-one training model. This allows us to deliver
intensive training to the new hired examiners, leaving more experienced
examiners and supervisors to focus on quality examination. In fiscal
year 2006, 123 examiners completed the university's 8-month program. So
far in fiscal year 2007, a total of 225 new examiners completed
training, with an additional 293 examiners slated to graduate by the
end of the fiscal year.
Strategy #3: Quality Initiatives
In fiscal year 2008 and beyond, patents will use a number of
strategies to improve quality, such as:
--leveraging the effectiveness of the Patent Training Academy to
enhance examiner skills;
--creating chief scientist positions;
--designing and implementing a comprehensive quality system to
collect and analyze all quality review information for
consistency and to provide feedback and improved training;
--offering a separate quality award that better recognizes the
accomplishments of examiners who meet or exceed quality
expectations;
--conducting targeted reviews in problem areas which focus on
examination processes or functions that show problematic
trends; and
--encouraging submissions of prior art by participating with a
consortium of patent users, applicants, attorneys, and members
of the academic community to build a system to actively solicit
prior art.
Trademarks will continue quality improvements by increasing the use
of quality review findings, analyzing and incorporating the results in
training, examination guidelines, policies and manuals. In addition,
trademarks will create comprehensive new employee training programs,
and explore the creation of web-based search tools, data mining, and
automated preliminary searches so that examining attorneys can search
more effectively.
Strategy #4: E-Government
The USPTO promotes electronic filing of applications. In fiscal
year 2006, 94 percent percent of trademark applications and 14 percent
of patent applications were filed electronically. Trademarks and patent
programs estimate that rates of electronic submission of new
applications will continue in fiscal year 2007, at 90 percent and 40
percent respectively. In fiscal year 2008, patents expects to receive
50 percent of all patent applications electronically, while trademarks
will hold at approximately 90 percent or above of applications filed
electronically.
Trademarks is continuing to enhance electronic filing by expanding
the number and type of transactions offered on-line and by offering
reduced fees to any applicant who files a complete applications using
the newer system, the Trademark Electronic Application System-Plus
(TEAS-Plus).
Patents implemented the Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web), a
user friendly, Internet-based patent application and document
submission solution. This system dramatically increased the electronic
filing of patent applications from 1.5 percent per month to 33 percent
per month at the end of fiscal year 2006. This easy to use system will
continue to encourage applicants to file electronically.
Patents is developing the electronic Patent File Wrapper (PFW) as
the solution to several business problems. PFW in conjunction with
current Patent Automated Information Systems (AIS's) will allow for a
fully automated, text-driven patent application processing system.
Strategy #5: Telework
In fiscal year 2006, a pioneer group of 500 patents examiners
participated in the newly implemented Patent Hoteling Program (PHP).
This voluntary program is designed to comply with congressional
direction and build upon the lessons learned from the very successful
Trademark Work-at-Home program. The PHP provides patent examiners the
ability to work from home with complete on-line access to the USPTO
resources. This concept allows participants to reserve time in
designated shared ``hotel'' offices at the Carlyle Campus in
Alexandria, Virginia. We plan to add 500 more examiners to the hoteling
program in fiscal year 2007. The goal of the hoteling program is to
change the boundaries of the old workplace patterns allowing for
decreased commute time, greater control over workloads, and even a more
balanced lifestyle for our employees. This all translates into
increased employee productivity and satisfaction, as well as higher
employee retention. On a more long-term basis, we hope to create a
workplace that can be anywhere, any time. Patents will also pilot a
work-at-home program for technical support staff.
In 2006, Trademark's Work-at-Home program for examining attorneys
received the ``Telework Program with Maximum Impact on Government
Award'' from the Telework Exchange. The Trademark Work-at-Home program
is considered a ``best practice'' because of its success in addressing
budgetary, space, retention, recruitment, and job satisfaction issues.
During 2006, trademarks expanded this program to include 85 percent of
all eligible employees.
Strategy #6: International
With substantial congressional support, the USPTO has significantly
expanded its efforts to strengthen intellectual property (IP) rights
protection globally. As part of the Bush Administration's Strategy
Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) initiative and the National
Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC),
the USPTO worked with other U.S. Government agencies to fight piracy
and counterfeiting around the world. We collaborate on IP training,
advocating progress in IP-related norm-setting bodies (e.g.,
intergovernmental organizations such as World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO)), and enforcement efforts with our colleagues in
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State; the Department of
Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection; the Copyright
Office; and the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR).
As part of STOP! the USPTO continues a communications campaign to
educate small businesses about protecting their IP in the United States
and abroad. Small business conferences are offered throughout the
country and other USPTO conferences focus exclusively on the IP
challenges of doing business in China. The USPTO continues to staff the
STOP! Hotline, which lets callers receive information on IP rights and
enforcement from our attorneys with regional and subject matter
experts. In 2006, the hotline received 1,460 phone calls from people
across America with a range of IP questions--an increase of 52 percent
over 2005.
To strengthen global IP protection, the USPTO represented the
United States in discussions and negotiations at the WIPO throughout
2006. Most notably, the USPTO led a delegation to the WIPO Diplomatic
Conference, which culminated in the adoption of the Singapore Treaty on
the Law of Trademarks. The new treaty will help trademark owners around
the world file applications and renew registrations with fewer
formality requirements.
The USPTO has promoted IP protection in China. Through the Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade and its Intellectual Property Rights
Working Group, the USPTO and USTR have negotiated commitments from the
Chinese Government to reduce counterfeiting and piracy.
The USPTO has established the Global Intellectual Property Academy
and has conducted IP rights programs for foreign government officials
and private sector representatives around the world. Additionally, we
have placed IP experts in Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Thailand, and
Geneva to advocate improved IP protection for American businesses and
to coordinate training to help stop piracy and counterfeiting abroad.
Strategy #7: Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery
The USPTO Business Continuity Program/Disaster Recovery Program is
committed to ensuring protection of USPTO data and systems from damage
or unavailability in the event of a disaster or prolonged outage. The
USPTO is operating both the patent and trademark production pipelines
in a predominantly electronic environment and is dependent on automated
systems to support the end-to-end processing of patent and trademark
applications. As such, the continuing operations of the USPTO are at an
increased risk should catastrophe strike the single data center prior
to the full deployment of disaster recovery services. We are
undertaking a phased implementation for deploying dual, load balanced
data centers that would enable us to protect our mission critical
patent and trademark data.
The USPTO's Business Continuity Program completion timeline will
occur in five major phases. As part of phase one, in 2007 the USPTO
will establish an off-site data ``bunker,'' far enough away from our
current data center to prevent a disaster from affecting both sites.
Phase two will begin with the establishment of a ``warm site'' that can
be activated in the event of a disaster at the primary data center.
Future phases will provide distributed processing, load balancing, and
automatic fail over for both core and non-core systems.
Conclusion
Intellectual property rights is a critical aspect of how nations
protect and promote innovation and global competitiveness. The United
States represents the gold standard for intellectual property
protection, and the USPTO is the most productive and most respected
intellectual property office in the world. However, because
intellectual property protection is so fundamental to our Nation's
economic growth, being the best is not enough. We must be perfect.
Despite the challenges, we at the USPTO strive to get it perfect, and
we look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure that we do.
Thank you.
PTO deg.PATENT APPLICATIONS AND PENDENCY
Senator Mikulski. I have visited NIST, and I've been
inspired. I've seen the hydrocarbon car and rode around in it
and looked at how you've examined building properties after
what happened at the World Trade Center, so not only do we
prevent an attack on us again, but that our buildings will be
safer and more secure.
Let me now go to patents, and then I'll come back to you,
Dr. Jeffrey.
The protection of our intellectual property is an obsession
with me. Because if we invent it, and all that goes into it,
that's how we're going to compete in the world. My question to
you, Mr. Dudas--and thank you for your energetic testimony--how
many patents do you receive a year, and what is the nature of
the backlog? I understand it's called ``pendency.''
Mr. Dudas. Pendency is the amount of time it takes for an
application from the time it's filed until the time it's
completed, and the backlog is literally the number of
applications that are waiting in line.
Senator Mikulski. Okay, well, tell me how many do you get?
Mr. Dudas. Yes, we are now receiving----
Senator Mikulski. What is the backlog, and what is the
pendency?
Mr. Dudas. Yes, the number of applications we receive is
growing every year, this year we anticipate 440,000 new patent
applications--largest in the world--which is a good news in
terms of innovation. 440,000 applications, and we're
experiencing growth right now of about 8 percent--many
countries are wanting to file more, and certainly Americans are
filing more.
Senator Mikulski. So, we have to be clear that it is not
only inventors and entrepreneurs of the United States of
America that file with you. But they file with you from around
the world.
Mr. Dudas. Absolutely.
Senator Mikulski. And, I understand one of the largest
countries is South Korea.
Mr. Dudas. South Korea is one of the fastest growing
countries. It is not right now one of the largest, but it is
the fastest growing.
Senator Mikulski. But you have 400,000 applicants a year,
of pretty techno stuff.
Mr. Dudas. Absolutely.
Senator Mikulski. Okay, and what is the backlog?
Mr. Dudas. The backlog is 700,000 patent applications
waiting in line.
Senator Mikulski. And how long is the timeframe?
Mr. Dudas. The average across the board is 31 months--and
it is growing because that backlog is, you know, I just call it
``deficit examining''--more applications coming in, even with
record hiring. So 700,000 applications, it's 31.1 months right
now, on average--but that's a little misleading, let me tell
you, to say ``on average'' because we have some areas--in the
mechanical arts, for instance--maybe relatively simple
inventions that are only taking 14 months. That's wonderful,
but on the other hand, we have some areas--like the electrical
arts--where you see a lot of the high technology, unfortunately
where you see the short life cycle, that could take 5 or 6
years. And this is exactly why we are introducing concepts like
accelerated examination.
Senator Mikulski. Well, then, let me go to these questions.
You've read the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report,
you're obviously there, and we're glad about the recognition in
Business Week. But my concerns relate to ongoing communication.
Mr. Dudas. Right.
Senator Mikulski. And the issues related to improving
technical education of staff. You're hiring people that are hot
tickets in the marketplace.
Mr. Dudas. Right.
Senator Mikulski. These are intellectual property lawyers,
paralegals, support staff--they're hot.
Mr. Dudas. Right, very.
Senator Mikulski. And, in some instances, they also have to
have security clearances.
Mr. Dudas. Right, absolutely.
Senator Mikulski. And we understand the dynamic in that.
Mr. Dudas. Right, they all have to be American citizens, as
well.
Senator Mikulski. So, could you--one of the things I noted
in your prepared remarks that you submitted, that you want to
retain, you don't want to keep training the new.
Mr. Dudas. Right.
PTO deg.PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE RETENTION AND TRAINING
Senator Mikulski. And we support that. Could you tell us
what you're doing in the area, both of retention, and providing
and cracking this whole issue of ongoing technical training.
There are people, when I talk to Nobel Prize winners that have
worked, who were civil servants, both at NASA and NIST, they
said they liked working for the Federal Government because it
was mission, it wasn't money, it was purpose. And, they also
worked with the best colleagues in the world, and they had the
opportunity for their own intellectual expansion. For us, for
them to stay fresh, both technically, and fresh in terms of
enthusiasm for the job, and a desire to stay.
Could you talk, then, about your retention techniques, and
the opportunity for them to get ongoing education.
Mr. Dudas. Absolutely.
Senator Mikulski. And do you need something from us?
Mr. Dudas. I'll report what you have, and quite honestly,
we're looking for guidance from anywhere and everywhere we can
get it, but I will tell you that I think we've done a number of
things.
First and foremost, what you talked about--what do people
want today? They're called the ``millennial,'' I'm not a
millennial, the millennial generation, but many of the people
we hire today, they care about Government service, they want to
be valued--money matters, but that's not the number one thing
that attracts them, and we try to address that, as well.
And you talked about training, and making sure you show
value. Of course, we have a challenge, because we are a
performance-based organization, people do have to work hard in
our office, but there's a number of things that we've done.
First and foremost, we've changed the way we train. Instead
of having examiners come in and train for 2 to 3 weeks and then
have a mentor approach, we've actually started a Patent
Examiner Training Academy, where they come in for 8 months, we
give extended-term training, so we can get a greater level of
consistency, it allows for more teamwork, it allows for people
to get to know the office better, and more consistency. That is
something that we needed to do, both because we thought it was
a best practice, and because of the amount we were hiring. It
turns out it has been a good practice.
Senator Mikulski. That's when they come in. What about
training for them while they're there? In other words, say
they've worked for 3 years, and they want to get refreshed and
renewed----
Mr. Dudas. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Mikulski. Both intellectually, and professionally.
Mr. Dudas. Absolutely.
Senator Mikulski They need to know the new stuff and the
new bus.
Mr. Dudas. Absolutely. One of the things we've done, is
beef up on allowing examiners to take time and use money to get
external training. And we're doing more internal training as
well. So, for instance, an examiner can have an opportunity to
have their legal degree paid for. If they want to get education
outside, they can get a legal degree outside the office and the
office will pay for it. In addition to that, any training they
want to get that's related to their field, outside the office,
PTO will pay up to $10,000.
Last year we had the first-ever managers training
conference, where we worked with managers, we got all of the
managers out, 2 days away from the office, to talk to them
about how they can train better, how they can resolve conflicts
better, how they can listen and communicate better with
examiners. Now we're also developing the different kinds of
training programs we can offer. We already offer several
through the office, and through the Federal Government. But,
how do we tailor it specifically for those examiners who've
been there for a long time?
Another program that we think is very important for
retention is teleworking. Five hundred examiners were given the
opportunity to work from home last year, and 500 more patent
examiners this year. Giving the examiners the opportunity to
have the flexibility to determine what they think is the best
work environment for themselves. We've found that that has been
an incredible boost for morale. Teleworking also gives people
more time with their families, but also more time to increase
their production, if they want to do that.
Senator Mikulski. Well, my time has expired, I will turn to
Senator Shelby. But, Dr. Jeffrey, you won't leave without a
question from me.
I think that's exciting--no, go ahead, go ahead. Senator
Shelby, you go right ahead.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
NIST deg.AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Dr. Jeffrey, I'll start with you, if I could.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology. Last
year, we've been talking about, the President announced the
American competitiveness initiative--investments are made in
federally funded research to ensure that the country has a
technologically skilled workforce. The National Institute of
Standards and Technology is one agency designated to lead this
initiative.
Dr. Jeffrey, how has the American competitiveness
initiative improved your portfolio in NIST?
Dr. Jeffrey. Thank you very much, Senator.
The ACI was an absolutely tremendous boost to NIST's
ability to do its mission. NIST stimulates innovation and
competitiveness through measurements and standards,
specifically to help support U.S. industry in terms of their
competitiveness, and also improving the quality of life.
The ACI finding will help us in a number of areas. For
example, it helps us to accelerate the development and adoption
of absolutely groundbreaking, and economically significant
technologies. Like, for example, nano-technology, which is
estimated to, perhaps, be a $1 trillion industry in 10 years.
Also, in support of our energy independence through advancing
the hydrogen economy and biofuels work.
It also supports the technical infrastructure that industry
needs for the measurements like the work at the NIST Center for
Neutron Research (NCNR), and the new NIST Center for Nano-Scale
Science Technology. Bottom line is the ACI substantially
enhances NIST's capacity and capability to meet our mission.
NIST deg.DISASTER RESILIENT STRUCTURES STUDIES
Senator Shelby. I'm also pleased to see that the budget
request includes an increase of funding for improving disaster-
resilient structures in communities. Results from these studies
are expected to influence building codes and construction
practices along the gulf coast, which need updating to match
current risk assessments.
How are you planning to coordinate with gulf coast
communities and State agencies to implement any results from
this program? As you know, continued construction--costs
continue to rise in the gulf coast as a result of rebuilding
from the 2005 hurricane. What part of this program explores how
safer construction could actually become more cost-effective
than current practices? Looking at the whole picture.
Dr. Jeffrey. Thank you, Senator.
We're very excited by the programs and new initiatives that
we put in in the 2008 budget. To answer the first question
``how we're going to coordinate''. After Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, NIST did an assessment--Lessons Learned in the Gulf Coast
Region. At that point we worked very closely with a lot of
State and local officials who were responsible for enacting and
enforcing the building codes. We have a good working
relationship with them, as well as the construction industry
down there.
Just like that, we will continue to work with the State and
local officials and with the local industry building officials
as the results from these new initiatives come forward. We'll
also continue to work with the National Building Codes and
Standards, to make sure that the lessons get adopted in there.
To answer the second question, which is how do we ensure
the cost effectiveness, the whole crux of that program, the
whole goal is to find a way of balancing the risk and the cost.
So the overall programs focus on exactly that goal. There are
actually three ways that we're going to be doing that. One is
in the focus on the building codes and standards on the local
risk assessment. It matters--whether you're a block away from
the ocean, versus 1 mile away from the ocean, and that needs to
be included when one looks at the risk assessment, and what the
building codes should be.
Second, we're emphasizing performance of the building
codes, as opposed to individual components, that way, it's very
prescriptive right now. What you want to do is look at the
performance in the entire structure.
And last, to really foster the adoption of new construction
techniques and materials that are at lower costs, that can help
provide greater security and risk assessment.
PTO deg.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT
Senator Shelby. Secretary Dudas, what are you doing at the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to curb intellectual property
theft, and strengthen both domestic and international
protection of these rights?
Mr. Dudas. Thanks for asking that question.
We are working both internationally and domestically.
First, while training small businesses in the United States, we
came to the conclusion we can't just issue patents and
registered trademarks, we need to educate businesses. So, we
have seminars throughout the country training small businesses.
First, on intellectual property generally, second on how to
do business in China, particularly, because it's such a hot
area and there's such a problem there.
PTO deg.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Senator Shelby. What about enforcement?
Mr. Dudas. Enforcement, we are not police.
Senator Shelby. We know that. But you aid in the----
Mr. Dudas [continuing]. Absolutely. We're the advisors to
the rest of the administration on free trade agreements, we
work very closely with the Departments of Justice and Customs
and Homeland Security, and we are often on the front lines. We
place people in China, Brazil, India, Russia, who work with
custom officials and others. And we also have a Global
Intellectual Property Training Academy where we train hundreds
of officials from foreign governments. We bring them here,
they're Supreme Court justices, customs officials, and train
them here in the United States.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. How large of a role does lax
enforcement--lax enforcement--of patents and copyrights
agreements, internationally play in violating intellectual
property rights? In other words, if you don't enforce what you
have.
Mr. Dudas. Right.
Senator Shelby. Or if you don't try to enforce it, if
you're not diligent, you're not on top of things--what do you
have, right?
Mr. Dudas. Right. Lax enforcement, I think, is the number
one problem for intellectual property rights. Many nations have
put laws into place that might comply, but if you don't enforce
them, you have nothing. Sometimes shaking a stick at other
nations, and telling them why it's critical, and we do that
through a variety of ways--but also, educating their officials
in why it's in their interest, as well as the United States.
PTO deg.COST OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT
Senator Shelby. Well, what's the estimated cost impact in
the United States, to the U.S. economy in terms of money and
jobs that can be attributed to the theft of U.S. intellectual
property?
Mr. Dudas. We've seen estimates as high as $250 billion.
Senator Shelby. Say that again, for the record, two
hundred----
Mr. Dudas. $250 billion.
Senator Shelby. $250 billion of lost money, it's jobs, is
it not?
Mr. Dudas. And the estimates of up to 750,000 jobs just
from intellectual property theft.
Senator Shelby. Do you have the coordination of the other
agencies to enforce our copyrights?
Mr. Dudas. I think we do, and----
Senator Shelby. Is it working pretty well?
Mr. Dudas. At the Presidential level, they pull together
nine different departments and agencies, targeting organized
piracy. We now see the President raising, as he has been for
some years, the issue with world leaders, and we've seen real
results because of that. The Department of Justice had a
copyright takedown in 10 different countries because of
international cooperation.
PTO deg.PATENT EXAMINATION QUALITY
Senator Shelby. The quality of patent examination is
central to ensuring that we have strong, enforceable patents,
otherwise they challenge, and say there's absolutely nothing to
that, you know, that's in the marketplace, everybody knows it.
What are you doing to ensure the quality of the patent
examination? You talked about the applications with Senator
Mikulski, and the backlog, but you know, you don't want to run
in and do something too hastily.
Mr. Dudas. Right.
Senator Shelby. Because, otherwise you--the quality's not
there.
Mr. Dudas. You're 100 percent right that there is tension
between productivity and quality, and we have to be fair to the
examiners. I will tell you, our number one goal was to make
certain we improved certainty and quality in the system.
The first thing we do is hire the best and the brightest,
the most dedicated people.
Senator Shelby. How do you do that, and compete in the
marketplace, this is very important for a governmental agency
that we fund to do that?
Mr. Dudas. Hiring 1,200 examiners has been an incredible
challenge, to hire the best and the brightest. We've judged by
grade point averages, and where people are coming from. Quite
honestly, I think the reason we've been successful in this
model, is because we do offer what Senator Mikulski mentioned,
which is Government service. You take a constitutional oath to
come to our office.
Senator Shelby. They're not doing it for money.
Mr. Dudas. They're not doing it for money.
Senator Shelby. But also, intellectual challenges in there.
Mr. Dudas. The intellectual challenges in our office are
absolutely one huge challenge for us. They do become valuable,
because they are so intelligent coming in, and the skills they
learn at the Patent and Trademark Office make them valuable in
other ways. But, we actually have a team that measures,
separate team that measures randomly, quality of examiners,
randomly 6 to 18 different cases. We've beefed up that, in
terms of how many cases we look at.
Senator Shelby. You have production goals, but at the same
time, it can't just be numbers, it's got to be quality.
Mr. Dudas. Right, we have production goals and quality
goals, and there are no bonuses--you cannot get a bonus until
you've met your quality goal. At least met your goal for
quality.
Senator Shelby. The worst thing you could do is allow a
patent for something that, isn't, perhaps not patentable, just
to meet a goal or a deadline, is that correct?
Mr. Dudas. You're absolutely right that quality has to be
first and foremost. And that's why, probably, the thing we are
proudest of is that we drove our error rate down to the lowest
it's been in history in trademarks, and second lowest in
history of patents.
Senator Shelby. The chairman has indulged me, if I have one
more question, Madam Chairman?
PTO deg.HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT REVIEWS
Mr. Dudas, over the past 7 years, independent audit in
agencies such as Government Accountability Office, OPM and the
inspector general have reviewed your office management of human
capital. What has been the result of these numerous audits, and
do you believe that your agency is aggressively implemented the
recommendation of these reviews, can you--and can you provide
specific improvements that has shown in the area of human
capital management?
Mr. Dudas. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. So much of what you're doing is dealing
with people, but people with high intellectual capacity.
Mr. Dudas. Right. First, to answer your question directly,
I am certain that we're aggressively implementing the
recommendations in these studies, and I will give you
specifics, but I want to point out--I think you're 100 percent
right--we have some of the smartest people there are, and
they're at the cutting edge of technology. I'm always humbled
when I sit down and talk to a Ph.D. in biotechnology in our
office to try to learn something specifically about a case.
And, I will tell you, first and foremost, when we look at
the Federal human capital survey, what our employees----
Senator Shelby. You got a lot of Phi Beta Kappas over
there?
Mr. Dudas. We've got a lot of Phi Beta Kappas, yes.
And when we look to our employees themselves, and look at
the results we have--and quite honestly, anecdotally, from me
walking around in the gym, and the preschool, and walking
around, just talking to examiners--what we do incredibly well
is measure. We give people the expectations they need and they
believe they're promoted for the right reasons.
What we're not doing well enough, and what we're focused on
now, is letting people feel they have creativity and innovation
in what they're doing. Because this production environment and
the metrics environment is a challenge to that.
And, so we've done a number of things. We've established an
Office of Internal Communications, focused only on how we
communicate with others. I've called in our management team, we
actually changed some of our management team, because we wanted
to make certain that we're communicating better, and we wanted
to make certain our senior managers did communicate better. So
our Commissioners of Patents and Trademarks have brown bag
lunches at least every month. Sometimes it's little things,
like going to retirement parties, speaking to examiners, 500 or
600 at a time. The Patent Training Academy brings in classes of
about 120 examiners at a time. Either I, or the Deputy and the
Commissioner will meet with them two or three times, to make
certain we're letting them know what's going on. And certainly,
most importantly, open to the different questions.
But on the more administrative side, we have a human
capital plan that we put in place and the Human Capital Council
that we've put in place. The question is, what are the results?
So, certainly, long term, I think administratively we've made a
big difference. I will tell you some of the results, I think,
we've gotten this year.
Being able to hire 1,200 examiners, and have a high-quality
class is something that, quite honestly, we were intimidated
by, because a number of Senators, a number of Members said,
``You simply can't do it.'' Our original goal was 750, and then
we did 875, and then we raised the goal to 1,000, and we did
1,219. And now we feel comfortable and confident that we can do
this with 1,200 folks. So, I think, just having an operation
that can hire 25 percent of your workforce every year is a
testament to what our human capital plan has put in place so
far.
Although money is not the most important thing, we
recognize we need to be competitive. We were able to get both
retention and recruitment bonuses adopted through the Office of
Personnel Management, as well as an across-the-board pay raise
of 7 percent for all patent examiners, both in the same year,
to say, ``Listen, we have to be able to recruit on this
basis.''
PTO deg.RELATIONSHIP WITH FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Senator Shelby. What kind of relationship do you have with
the Federal Drug Administration?
Mr. Dudas. Food and Drug Administration?
Senator Shelby. Food and Drug----
Mr. Dudas. It's more administrative than anything else. Our
policy folks get together and talk, but certainly we have an
administrative relationship in that certain pharmaceutical and
agricultural products----
Senator Shelby. Right.
Mr. Dudas. Have an administrative way of getting a term
extension. It's mostly a ministerial task at the Patent and
Trademark Office.
Senator Shelby. Because they patent.
Mr. Dudas. What happens is that the Food and Drug
Administration or Agriculture has to approve a certain product,
so they're not allowed to get to the market----
Senator Shelby. Absolutely, it's safety.
Mr. Dudas. Yeah, exactly, the Hatch-Waxman law allows for
some extensions. So, we have a relationship in that we
communicate with them, so we understand----
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Dudas. But, really it's more administrative.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Senator Shelby, those were
excellent questions, and certainly reflect my own thinking.
I just wanted to close the loop for the purposes of this
hearing on the patent issue. I think what we're saying is, that
what we want is the PTO to really function in the way I think
you and we would like it to be. There have been a series of
issues that have been raised, and there are numerous reports,
and that you have raised internally. We know that there's been
legislation that took the PTO from kind of a 1950's Government
thinking--when Rubric's quoting in 50's and 60's technology--to
a performance-based agency in a new world order. Not only a new
economy. And, therefore, we're very conscious in performance-
base with benchmarks, and metrics, these things are important.
All of this is important, but ultimately, it's those
employees who feel that they are on solid ground, and they want
to either make it a career, or they want to make it a long
enough of a career to make what we invest in them worthwhile.
That's really our question. Because we know, in the
marketplace, they'll move out. But you will always need a cadre
of civil servants that are there. So, this is why we'll come
back to you in terms of what I raise with both Secretary Dudas
and Gutierrez, you've heard what we've raised, no surprises,
and no spring hazing--we wanted that remediation plan. So,
let's get this remediation plan. You know what the challenges
are, and what we think we can do this year, and what we can do
subsequently.
We're also aware of the international challenges--not only
the number of countries that are applying and--because they
want our intellectual property so they can come into our
market. We're the gold standard. You are, like FDA, the gold
standard.
And, what we're very impressed by the National Intellectual
Property Law Enforcement Coordinating Council. I've read their
most recent report, and Senator Shelby, I know you've traveled
the world on security matters, both as intel chair, and
actually of this subcommittee, which--you get high marks for
training Government officials in other countries to enforcement
issues, educating foreign publics about intellectual property,
the group called STOP.
So, that's a whole other area we could follow up on. But,
we want to be sure, as we go ahead in this year's
appropriation, you can meet some of those international
challenges, as well as being flooded with patents. So, we're
going to come back to you.
NIST deg.NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
FUNDING INCREASE FOR AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
But, Dr. Jeffrey, let me go over to you, I mean, we're very
impressed that the President's budget increased funding for
NIST, particularly in the laboratory and some construction
accounts, however we're concerned that it was paid for out of
ATP and the manufacturing extension program.
But, if we could come back to you being in the
competitiveness agenda--what do you think are the three kinds
of most robust things that you want to do with this new money,
and is this--does it go to the horizon, or does it take us over
the horizon? And also, looking at both innovation and then, to
the extent that you can testify publicly, its link to security?
Dr. Jeffrey. Absolutely. The three overriding things that
we need to do at NIST to ensure that we're providing the
support in industry and academia that we need to do, is one, we
need to absolutely ensure that our basic core competencies are
strong, and that we're meeting the needs of industry today, and
as we look forward to the future. And there's a number of areas
that some of the funding under ACI is going in to strengthen.
It's no secret that the NIST funding has--over the last,
essentially, two decades, not really kept pace with the needs
that were arising. And so we've eaten into our seed corn. This,
now, fixes that.
Second, we need to look at was the future to those areas
that are going to be absolutely critical for industry and
universities. Nano-technology is a great example. That's going
to be an incredible disruptive and important economic impact.
It's estimated that up to 15 percent of all manufactured goods
in 10 years is going to include nano-technology. We need to be
there and ready for them.
And the third area is that we have to ensure that we have
the facilities capabilities to make these kind of measurements.
And that also, if I could almost follow on to the last of the
questioning, is critical to being able to attract and retain
the best and the brightest scientists. They have to be able to
have the kinds of facilities necessary to do the job, and
that's why you also see an important component on the
facilities, and in our budget.
NIST deg.CENTER FOR NANO-SCALE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY
Senator Mikulski. Well, we appreciate that, and if I could
go right to nano-technology in a question.
As I understand it, this is $6 million for enabling nano-
tech from discovery to manufacturer. At this center, do you,
have you developed an operating business plan for moving ahead
with this, because there's some question about the user
facility.
Dr. Jeffrey. Absolutely, the Center for Nano-Scale Science
Technology is sort of a two-pronged program. One is, as a
national user facility, and the other is as a research
facility. That was created in the 2007 President's budget and
is now being expanded in 2008. We are in the process of
completing all of policy documents and all of the business
models for that. I was, quite frankly, slowed down a bit
because of the continuing resolution, until that was resolved,
and thanks to a lot of the support of the people here and on
the House side, we've had sufficient funding in the continuing
resolution to now move forward.
So, we expect to have all of the documents done, and open
for business, essentially, May of this year.
NIST deg.SAFETY OF NANO-TECHNOLOGY
Senator Mikulski. Well, that sounds good. One last question
about nano-tech.
One of the issues that is raised is, that--is nano-tech
safe? Because they're such mini-, micro-particles, I don't even
have--they're nano-particles, which means they're sub-mini-
micro-particles. But there's a lot of question, as you know,
about the safety of them. Is part of your ongoing research and
standards is, the flashing yellow lights around the impact of
health, the part of the NIST effort?
Dr. Jeffrey. Excellent question, Senator.
NIST is taking very seriously the issues of safety in nano-
technology. And we're working with other agencies to make sure
that we have good answers for the general public, because the
worst thing that can happen is, either an actual
environmental----
Senator Mikulski. But are you doing it?
Dr. Jeffrey. The role that NIST plays is on the
measurements and characterization of the nano-technology that
gets, that one can then determine the health impacts.
I'll give you an example, a concrete example. Carbon nano-
tubes, which are one of the essential building blocks of nano-
technology--we received a sample of carbon nano-tubes from
industry to characterize it. We found that 60 percent--six-zero
percent--of the atoms were not carbon, they were heavy metals.
Senator Mikulski. Oh, gosh.
Dr. Jeffrey. There were catalysts that were used, thereby
contaminating the sample. So, when one, then goes to NIH or
others to look at the toxicity, are you measuring the toxicity
of the carbon nano-tube? Or the toxicity of the heavy metals?
So, NIST is working very closely to characterize materials,
to purify the materials, to ensure that we've got the
measurements that we can then apply, working closely, and we
are working closely and collaboratively with NIH, with FDA and
with others, to have that collusive approach. We provide the
measurements characterizations, they supply the medical
implications.
Senator Mikulski. That's fantastic.
We also are very heartened by the fact that you are one of
the lead agencies in dealing with the climate crisis, when
measurements and standards for climate change science, as well
as the practical things like the national earthquake hazard
reduction program.
NIST deg.EFFECTIVENESS OF MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
We won't go into that now, but here's the question--you
hear our colleagues here raising questions about manufacturing
extension. And then you've also heard on the floor, challenges
to ATP, is it corporate welfare, whose time has come and gone.
What are your comments about ATP and MEP? We're going to be on
pressure from one group of Senators who want to save ATP and
another group of Senators who want to tank it. And then, of
course, there's enthusiastic support for MEP. And, I think,
well-warranted--the support is not, again, it's not about pork,
but in their community it's been, it's brought the beef.
Dr. Jeffrey. Thank you. Let me take the last part first, on
MEP, as the Secretary testified to, the administration
recognizes the effectiveness of MEP, it is an effective
program, it's been measured and rated by OMB as an effective
program. The issue is one of prioritizations in the tight
budget climate. Our core competencies and concentration is on
the measurements and standards that impact entire industries,
and opposed to individual companies one at a time. And, in a
tough budget climate, those prioritizations had to be made.
On ATP, there is a lot of disagreement as to where the
appropriate role is for the Federal Government to be investing.
One thing, I think, is fairly clear, though, is that there is
friction between the basic scientific discoveries, and when it
ends up in the marketplace.
And, there are a number of different ways that one can look
at trying to minimize that friction, and make it easier to
increase the efficiency by which a scientific discovery is able
to get commercialized. And I think we need to be open in
looking at all sorts of different models and policy options to
try to help and make that the most efficient. Because, the
faster we can get those discoveries to market, the better the
advantage we will have in the global economy.
Senator Mikulski. Well, that's exactly right, and you're
working to develop those standards and so on, and that's the
heart and soul of a patent process--not only what is it and
what does it do, but how do you kind of measure it, or certain
metrics, not only measurement, to identify it, et cetera.
Well, our time is really up.
Senator Shelby. I just wanted to----
Senator Mikulski. Yes, we could go on all day, and I hope
one day to visit you, and of course, visit you, Dr. Jeffrey,
and perhaps we could go together, but Senator Shelby?
Senator Shelby. I would like to go sometime, and I don't
know if I'd understand everything they were doing, but I'd be
fascinated.
Senator Mikulski. Me too.
NIST deg.NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY'S
COLLABORATION WITH INDUSTRY
Senator Shelby. Dr. Jeffrey, in your testimony, you
mentioned the recent advancements, I'm picking up on Senator--
in nano-technology, and how your agency is developing a method
for testing the quality of nano-tube material.
Besides testing the tubes, what other ways does NIST plan
to interact with the industry? Particularly, with the
manufacturing of more efficient fuel cells, and creating
baseline standards for the use of nano-particles within the
medical industry.
Dr. Jeffrey. Thank you very much. There's a number of
different areas where we've been reaching out to industry. One
of the beauties of NIST, which is almost unique among the
Federal Science and Technology Enterprise, is the close
collaboration that we have with industry. Where they are not
just customers, they are partners.
I believe Secretary Gutierrez made a reference that we have
about 1,500 technical Government employees, but we have about
2,800 technical private sector people from industry and
academia, literally coming to the NIST campus and working side
by side, so it's a very close collaboration.
In terms of some of the specifics, I'll give this as an
example. We actually just completed a study, it's called An
Assessment of the U.S. Measurement System, where we actually
looked at----
Senator Shelby. What are the results of the study?
Dr. Jeffrey. Well, the results are that we're trying to
identify measurement barriers to innovation. This is to help us
in our strategic planning process, as well as to reach out to
other parts of the Federal Government, where they have
measurement needs. We identified 723 measurement barriers to
innovation that were in 11 different industry sectors--
including ones that you described. One of the things that we're
now doing, now that we have--this is the first cut--it's
fascinating reading, sir, we'll be glad to provide copies. But
one of the things that we're now doing is, essentially, a deep
dive into this, and looking at--as opposed to 723 separate
measurement needs, are there systemic issues that we can attack
that would be the highest priority that we can then, really
make the biggest difference on.
And, so we're working very closely with the universities
and I'm very proud to say we hosted a set of universities from
Alabama up on the NIST campus, specifically looking at some of
the health impacts on the new technology, and looking broadly
at reaching out and forming partnerships. I was very impressed
with what I saw.
Senator Shelby. This is very promising. It's a different
field from anybody could imagine other than the lab 25 years
ago, is that right?
Dr. Jeffrey. Absolutely. This is an entirely new area. One
of the things to put this into perspective, when we talk about
nano-technology, and mini-micro and going all the way down. We
have a beautiful picture that we captured of a carbon nano-
tube, again, it's sort of a basic building block--on the hair
of the leg of an ant.
Senator Shelby. It's so small, it's hard for us to imagine,
isn't it?
Dr. Jeffrey. Yeah, absolutely.
Senator Shelby. We talked about miniaturization of
everything, but then, this has gone a quantum leap, has it not?
Dr. Jeffrey. Absolutely. We are literally talking about a
few atoms. It's really where the action is occurring.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you. And, we want to thank
our panelists, and I think this has been a very, a very robust
hearing. And we've gotten the subcommittee off to a good start,
we thank you for your service, and we look forward to working
with you now, as we go through the appropriation process.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are no further questions, Senators may submit
additional questions for the subcommittee's official record. We
request the Department's responses in 30 days.
[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 Barbara A. Mikulski
departmental management wcf and a&r
Question. Please provide the WCF bill breakout (including the A&R)
by bureaus for fiscal year 2001-2007. Also provide the estimated WCF
bill (including A&R) for each of the bureaus in the fiscal year 2008
request.
Answer. The requested information follows.
ATTACHMENT 1.--ADVANCES & REIMBURSEMENTS SUMMARY BY BUREAU
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau 2007 2008
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 estimate estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY--SALARIES & EXPENSES.................... 4,201 4,333 3,873 2,690 5,094 4,306 4,820 4,931
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION.............................. 15,351 15,202 15,454 12,901 13,910 12,510 13,319 13,622
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION............................. 1,376 1,411 1,370 1,230 1,298 1,372 1,613 1,647
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFO ADMIN...................... 2,608 2,650 2,579 2,027 2,431 2,387 2,582 2,641
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE.......................... 282 32 76 211 85 129 143 145
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS............................................ 1,703 2,261 1,367 1,540 1,503 3,210 4,873 4,956
ECONOMIC AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS............................... 1,109 1,135 1,128 901 1,195 882 1,058 1,081
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION................. 4,805 4,047 3,810 4,062 3,938 5,420 7,155 7,290
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.................. 1,042 825 778 988 910 1,002 1,451 1,476
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY............................ 786 797 849 602 709 703 777 795
BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY................................. 3,643 3,735 3,662 3,061 3,487 3,243 3,550 3,630
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION....................................... 929 937 932 775 660 423 277 283
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL..................................... 1,350 1,373 1,126 999 1,163 1,130 1,142 1,169
OFFICE OF COMPUTER SERVICES..................................... 419 425 309 266 269 268 276 282
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY--WORKING CAPITAL FUND................... 6,813 7,076 6,813 5,338 6,066 5,661 5,918 6,057
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BY BUREAU........................................ 46,417 46,239 44,126 37,591 42,718 42,646 48,954 50,005
=======================================================================================
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE..................................... 1,248 1,107 825 1,133 1,135 2,517 2,610 2,655
=======================================================================================
TOTAL A&R................................................. 47,665 47,346 44,951 38,724 43,853 45,163 51,564 52,660
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Fiscal years 2001-2002 represents the operating plan for the year.
ATTACHMENT 1A.--WORKING CAPITAL FUND BILLINGS SUMMARY BY BUREAU
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau 2007
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 operating 2008
actuals actuals actuals actuals actuals actuals plan estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY......................................... 6,810 6,419 6,873 7,966 8,906 8,551 10,142 10,923
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION.............................. 16,997 18,905 20,673 24,356 26,886 27,688 29,801 31,306
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION............................. 1,193 1,409 1,419 2,029 1,983 2,519 2,161 2,582
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFO ADMIN...................... 2,385 2,456 2,629 3,188 3,294 3,346 3,643 4,153
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE.......................... 407 554 556 516 515 461 487 563
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS............................................ 22,073 20,609 21,712 21,345 23,249 23,263 22,601 25,531
ECONOMIC AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS............................... 1,779 2,140 2,127 2,215 2,542 2,608 2,564 3,058
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN.......................... 29,680 31,270 32,712 36,164 39,546 33,306 36,206 35,165
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.................. 7,482 9,317 9,858 9,798 10,527 9,616 9,339 11,496
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY............................ 1,213 1,203 1,439 1,468 2,024 1,866 1,928 2,384
BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY................................. 4,578 4,827 5,628 6,725 6,797 7,223 7,604 8,717
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION....................................... 630 665 552 900 939 724 613 1,100
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL..................................... 967 1,057 1,054 1,359 1,531 1,621 1,700 1,874
OFFICE OF COMPUTER SERVICES..................................... 261 355 266 326 274 231 245 331
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL BY BUREAU........................................ 96,455 101,186 107,498 118,355 129,013 123,023 129,034 139,183
=======================================================================================
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE..................................... 6,052 3,559 3,015 2,964 2,808 3,507 2,929 2,555
OTHER AGENCIES \1\.............................................. 8,593 8,762 9,666 1,067 997 714 517 1,086
=======================================================================================
TOTAL..................................................... 111,100 113,507 120,179 122,386 132,818 127,244 132,480 142,824
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOC Federal Credit Union, White House Visitor Center, National Aquarium, National Indian Gaming Comm. and FAA.
Question. Please provide a breakout of ATBs (adjustments to base)
by bureau for WCF payments, any E-Government initiatives and for the
Commerce Business System.
Answer. The requested information follows.
ATTACHMENT 2.--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT--WORKING CAPITAL FUND FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET SUBMISSION--ATBS & PROGRAM INCREASES BY BUREAU
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WIGS PAY
CSRS FERS TSP FICA BAND GSA RENT PRINTING HEALTH GPL ADJ PER DIEM COMP DAY POSTG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O/S............................................. -4 7 2 7 .......... 32 1 23 72 1 53 2
ITA............................................. -8 13 2 13 .......... 64 1 47 177 11 105 2
EDA............................................. -1 1 .......... 1 .......... 6 .......... 4 14 .......... 10 ..........
NTIA............................................ -1 1 .......... 1 .......... 8 .......... 4 27 .......... 11 ..........
NTIS............................................ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1 3 .......... 2 ..........
CENSUS.......................................... -7 11 2 10 .......... 38 1 38 136 4 87 ..........
ESA/BEA......................................... -1 1 .......... 1 .......... 6 .......... 4 13 .......... 10 ..........
NOAA............................................ -10 16 3 15 .......... 63 2 56 183 8 131 1
NIST............................................ -3 5 1 5 .......... 16 1 18 40 2 43 ..........
PTO............................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
MBDA............................................ -1 1 .......... 1 .......... 4 .......... 3 9 .......... 8 ..........
BIS............................................. -2 4 1 3 .......... 18 .......... 12 34 1 29 ..........
TA.............................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2 .......... 1 6 .......... 3 ..........
OS--IG.......................................... .......... 1 .......... 1 .......... 4 .......... 2 14 .......... 4 ..........
OCS............................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1 .......... 1 3 .......... 3 ..........
OTHER........................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
LESS ABSORBED................................... -38 61 11 58 .......... 262 6 214 731 27 499 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................... -38 61 11 58 .......... 262 6 214 731 27 499 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 2.--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT--WORKING CAPITAL FUND FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET SUBMISSION--ATBS & PROGRAM INCREASES BY BUREAU--CONTINUED
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL
EMP COMP CBS STEAM PEPCO GENERAL 2008 PAY 2007 PAY TOTAL WCF PROGRAM TOTAL TO
DECREASE ELECTRIC ATBS RAISE RAISE ATB INCREASE BUREAUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O/S............................. .......... -8 41 97 326 156 39 521 .......... 521
ITA............................. .......... -48 138 329 846 302 75 1,223 .......... 1,223
EDA............................. .......... -6 13 30 72 30 7 109 .......... 109
NTIA............................ .......... -4 27 64 138 31 8 177 .......... 177
NTIS............................ .......... -8 .......... .......... -2 5 1 4 .......... 4
CENSUS.......................... .......... -160 .......... .......... 160 250 62 472 .......... 472
ESA/BEA......................... .......... -10 10 23 57 30 7 94 .......... 94
NOAA............................ .......... -278 23 54 267 379 94 740 .......... 740
NIST............................ .......... -70 1 2 61 123 30 214 .......... 214
PTO............................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
MBDA............................ .......... -3 7 18 47 23 6 76 .......... 76
BIS............................. .......... -8 37 89 218 83 21 322 .......... 322
TA.............................. .......... -1 7 17 35 7 2 44 .......... 44
OS--IG.......................... .......... -4 13 33 68 13 3 84 .......... 84
OCS............................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 8 7 2 17 .......... 17
OTHER........................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
LESS ABSORBED................... .......... -608 317 756 2,301 1,439 357 4,097 .......... 4,097
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................... .......... -608 317 756 2,301 1,439 357 4,097 .......... 4,097
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a complete cost breakout for the
development of CAMS/CBS by fiscal year since inception. Cost should
capture: all contract costs; all Commerce staff assigned to central
coordinating offices; all detailed staff from bureaus to central
office; all staff costs for staff that primarily worked on CAMS/CBS.
Answer. Attachment 3 provides a complete cost breakout for the
development of the Commerce Administrative Management System/Commerce
Business System (CAMS/CBS) from fiscal year 1999 to 2003. Upon full
bureau implementation at the end of fiscal year 2003, CAMS/CBS has been
in operational maintenance and support status.
ATTACHMENT 3.--CAMS/CBS COSTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Years--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Total..................... 27,275 33,465 41,952 46,195 36,469 35,221 34,729 35,967 38,125 38,638 39,313 39,986 40,655 40,100
Labor................................. 23,195 28,620 36,000 39,731 31,123 30,030 29,480 30,393 31,335 31,385 31,980 32,557 33,048 32,341
Government........................ 9,561 11,731 12,009 12,354 12,784 12,346 12,474 12,814 13,238 16,281 17,418 17,895 18,110 18,320
Contractor........................ 13,634 16,889 23,991 27,377 18,339 17,684 17,006 17,579 18,097 15,104 14,562 14,662 14,938 14,021
Other Costs........................... 4,080 4,845 5,952 6,464 5,346 5,191 5,249 5,574 6,790 7,253 7,333 7,429 7,607 7,759
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: No staff were detailed from the bureaus to the central office.
Question. Please provide any estimated out-year costs associated
with CAMS/CBS development.
Answer. Since fiscal year 2004, CAMS/CBS development costs have
been for technical migrations to keep current with Oracle forms and
database applications to ensure information technology audit
compliancy. There have been no application functionality developments
except in non-compliance situations when dictated by new and/or changes
in Federal policy or regulations.
Question. Please provide the latest FAIR Act inventory along with
the status of any on-going or planned A-76 competitions.
Answer. The Department of Commerce has initiated a streamlined
competitive sourcing competition for their Office of Photographic
Services. A decision is expected to be announced by the Department by
April 2007. No additional competitions are planned at this stage. The
last OMB-approved inventory (fiscal year 2005) is attachment 4. We
expect to have our fiscal year 2006 inventory approved and released by
OMB in the next few weeks and will notify Congress at that time. There
has been no substantial change between the 2005 and 2006 inventories.
The link to the website is: http://oamweb.osec.doc.gov/
CS_doc_inventories.html
ATTACHMENT 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total CY Reim CY
Seq. No. Agency/Bureau Department/Agency/Bureau Title FTEs Dir CY FTEs FTEs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Agriculture:
05060003 005-03 Office of the Secretary.......................................................................................... 87 87 ...........
05060004 005-04 Executive Operations............................................................................................. 3,376 390 2,986
05060005 005-07 Office of Civil Rights........................................................................................... 191 181 10
05060006 005-05 Departmental Administration...................................................................................... 394 327 67
05060007 005-06 Office of Communications......................................................................................... 90 90 ...........
05060008 005-08 Office of the Inspector General.................................................................................. 721 721 ...........
05060010 005-10 Office of the General Counsel.................................................................................... 330 321 9
05060013 005-13 Economic Research Service........................................................................................ 455 452 3
05060015 005-15 National Agricultural Statistics Service......................................................................... 1,366 1,260 106
05060018 005-18 Agricultural Research Service.................................................................................... 8,794 8,598 196
05060020 005-20 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service..................................................... 451 442 9
05060032 005-32 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....................................................................... 6,761 5,928 833
05060035 005-35 Food Safety and Inspection Service............................................................................... 9,761 9,525 236
05060037 005-37 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.......................................................... 725 338 387
05060045 005-45 Agricultural Marketing Service................................................................................... 3,455 2,344 1,111
05060047 005-47 Risk Management Agency........................................................................................... 568 568 ...........
05060049 005-49 Farm Service Agency.............................................................................................. 5,498 2,134 3,364
05060053 005-53 Natural Resources Conservation Service........................................................................... 13,627 12,488 1,139
05060055 005-55 Rural Development................................................................................................ 6,872 1,686 5,186
05060068 005-68 Foreign Agricultural Service..................................................................................... 1,002 812 190
05060084 005-84 Food and Nutrition Service....................................................................................... 1,488 1,488 ...........
05060096 005-96 Forest Service................................................................................................... 37,298 35,414 1,884
----------------------------------------
050600ZZ Total, Department of Agriculture............................................................................... 103,310 85,594 17,716
========================================
Department of Commerce:
05061005 006-05 Departmental Management.......................................................................................... 1,134 363 771
05061006 006-06 Economic Development Administration.............................................................................. 247 240 7
05061008 006-07 Bureau of the Census............................................................................................. 9,401 6,659 2,742
05061009 006-08 Economic and Statistical Analysis................................................................................ 552 525 27
05061025 006-25 International Trade Administration............................................................................... 2,602 2,553 49
05061030 006-30 Bureau of Industry and Security.................................................................................. 418 414 4
05061040 006-40 Minority Business Development Agency............................................................................. 115 115 ...........
05061048 006-48 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.................................................................. 12,634 11,769 865
05061051 006-51 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office................................................................................. 7,198 ........... 7,198
05061053 006-53 Technology Administration........................................................................................ 31 30 1
05061054 006-54 National Technical Information Service........................................................................... 200 ........... 200
05061055 006-55 National Institute of Standards and Technology................................................................... 3,028 2,334 694
05061060 006-60 National Telecommunications and Information Administration....................................................... 295 128 167
----------------------------------------
050610ZZ Total, Department of Commerce.................................................................................. 37,855 25,130 12,725
========================================
Department of Defense--Military:
05062010 007-10 Operation and Maintenance........................................................................................ 433,191 353,892 79,299
05062020 007-20 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation...................................................................... 26,823 14,717 12,106
05062025 007-25 Military Construction............................................................................................ 7,893 1,962 5,931
05062030 007-30 Family Housing................................................................................................... 2,030 2,021 9
05062040 007-40 Revolving and Management Funds................................................................................... 189,952 ........... 189,952
----------------------------------------
050620ZZ Total, Department of Defense--Military......................................................................... 659,889 372,592 287,297
========================================
Department of Education:
05072030 018-30 Office of Vocational and Adult Education......................................................................... 20 20 ...........
05072040 018-40 Office of Postsecondary Education................................................................................ 5 5 ...........
05072045 018-45 Federal Student Aid.............................................................................................. 1,140 1,140 ...........
05072050 018-50 Institute of Education Sciences.................................................................................. 16 16 ...........
05072080 018-80 Departmental Management.......................................................................................... 3,273 3,273 ...........
----------------------------------------
050720ZZ Total, Department of Education................................................................................. 4,454 4,454 ...........
========================================
Department of Energy:
05073005 019-05 National Nuclear Security Administration......................................................................... 2,543 2,543 ...........
05073010 019-10 Environmental and Other Defense Activities....................................................................... 2,566 2,566 ...........
05073020 019-20 Energy Programs.................................................................................................. 4,660 3,373 1,287
05073050 019-50 Power Marketing Administration................................................................................... 4,711 1,264 3,447
05073060 019-60 Departmental Administration...................................................................................... 1,442 1,442 ...........
----------------------------------------
050730ZZ Total, Department of Energy.................................................................................... 15,922 11,188 4,734
========================================
Department of Health and Human Services:
05074010 009-10 Food and Drug Administration..................................................................................... 9,696 7,957 1,739
05074015 009-15 Health Resources and Services Administration..................................................................... 1,590 1,445 145
05074017 009-17 Indian Health Services........................................................................................... 13,950 8,909 5,041
05074020 009-20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention....................................................................... 7,917 6,683 1,234
05074025 009-25 National Institutes of Health.................................................................................... 17,106 11,875 5,231
05074030 009-30 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration........................................................ 508 466 42
05074033 009-33 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality....................................................................... 286 ........... 286
05074038 009-38 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services....................................................................... 4,852 4,780 72
05074070 009-70 Administration for Children and Families......................................................................... 1,382 1,382 ...........
05074075 009-75 Administration on Aging.......................................................................................... 126 119 7
05074090 009-90 Departmental Management.......................................................................................... 1,896 1,400 496
05074091 009-91 Program Support Center........................................................................................... 1,491 37 1,454
05074092 009-92 Office of the Inspector General.................................................................................. 1,506 278 1,228
----------------------------------------
050740ZZ Total, Department of Health and Human Services................................................................. 62,306 45,331 16,975
========================================
Department of Homeland Security:
05074510 024-10 Departmental Management.......................................................................................... 905 903 2
05074520 024-20 Office of the Inspector General.................................................................................. 502 502 ...........
05074530 024-30 Citizenship and Immigration Services............................................................................. 10,052 10,052 ...........
05074540 024-40 United States Secret Service..................................................................................... 6,516 6,516 ...........
05074550 024-50 Border and Transportation Security............................................................................... 112,932 105,441 7,491
05074560 024-60 United States Coast Guard........................................................................................ 7,036 6,274 762
05074570 024-70 Emergency Preparedness and Response.............................................................................. 4,792 4,374 418
05074580 024-80 Science and Technology........................................................................................... 320 320 ...........
05074590 024-90 Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection............................................................... 803 803 ...........
----------------------------------------
050745ZZ Total, Department of Homeland Security......................................................................... 143,858 135,185 8,673
========================================
05075035 025-35 Department of Housing and Urban Development: Management and Administration........................................... 10,028 5,372 4,656
========================================
Department of the Interior:
05076004 010-04 Bureau of Land Management........................................................................................ 11,065 10,691 374
05076006 010-06 Minerals Management Service...................................................................................... 1,763 1,632 131
05076008 010-08 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement............................................................. 580 577 3
05076010 010-10 Bureau of Reclamation............................................................................................ 5,757 3,087 2,670
05076011 010-11 Central Utah Project............................................................................................. 17 17 ...........
05076012 010-12 United States Geological Survey.................................................................................. 8,950 6,007 2,943
05076018 010-18 United States Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................................................... 9,378 8,605 773
05076024 010-24 National Park Service............................................................................................ 20,671 19,983 688
05076076 010-76 Bureau of Indian Affairs......................................................................................... 9,605 8,901 704
05076084 010-84 Departmental Management.......................................................................................... 1,810 479 1,331
05076085 010-85 Insular Affairs.................................................................................................. 40 40 ...........
05076086 010-86 Office of the Solicitor.......................................................................................... 422 366 56
05076087 010-88 Office of Inspector General...................................................................................... 270 270 ...........
05076088 010-91 Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration.............................................................. 6 6 ...........
05076089 010-90 Office of Special Trustee for American Indians................................................................... 581 581 ...........
05076092 010-92 National Indian Gaming Commission................................................................................ 81 81 ...........
----------------------------------------
050760ZZ Total, Department of the Interior.............................................................................. 70,996 61,323 9,673
========================================
Department of Justice:
05077003 011-03 General Administration........................................................................................... 3,645 2,805 840
05077004 011-04 United States Parole Commission.................................................................................. 104 104 ...........
05077005 011-05 Legal Activities and U.S. Marshals............................................................................... 22,694 19,159 3,535
05077010 011-10 Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................................................................. 31,939 29,081 2,858
05077012 011-12 Drug Enforcement Administration.................................................................................. 10,644 9,189 1,455
05077014 011-14 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives............................................................. 4,940 4,885 55
05077020 011-20 Federal Prison System............................................................................................ 41,565 38,466 3,099
05077021 011-21 Office of Justice Programs....................................................................................... 964 947 17
----------------------------------------
050770ZZ Total, Department of Justice................................................................................... 116,495 104,636 11,859
========================================
Department of Labor:
05078005 012-05 Employment and Training Administration........................................................................... 1,209 1,206 3
05078011 012-11 Employee Benefits Security Administration........................................................................ 887 887 ...........
05078012 012-12 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation............................................................................. 806 ........... 806
05078015 012-15 Employment Standards Administration.............................................................................. 4,120 3,992 128
05078018 012-18 Occupational Safety and Health Administration.................................................................... 2,208 2,203 5
05078019 012-19 Mine Safety and Health Administration............................................................................ 2,187 2,187 ...........
05078020 012-20 Bureau of Labor Statistics....................................................................................... 2,475 2,445 30
05078025 012-25 Departmental Management.......................................................................................... 2,884 2,181 703
----------------------------------------
050780ZZ Total, Department of Labor..................................................................................... 16,776 15,101 1,675
========================================
Department of State:
05079005 014-05 Administration of Foreign Affairs................................................................................ 29,685 18,895 10,790
05079015 014-15 International Commissions........................................................................................ 307 273 34
05079025 014-25 Other............................................................................................................ 292 292 ...........
----------------------------------------
050790ZZ Total, Department of State..................................................................................... 30,284 19,460 10,824
========================================
Department of Transportation:
05080004 021-04 Office of the Secretary.......................................................................................... 868 596 272
05080012 021-12 Federal Aviation Administration.................................................................................. 47,659 46,307 1,352
05080015 021-15 Federal Highway Administration................................................................................... 3,133 3,104 29
05080017 021-17 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration...................................................................... 1,098 1,046 52
05080018 021-18 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration................................................................... 673 673 ...........
05080027 021-27 Federal Railroad Administration.................................................................................. 827 827 ...........
05080036 021-36 Federal Transit Administration................................................................................... 527 527 ...........
05080040 021-40 Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................................................................... 157 ........... 157
05080050 021-50 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration........................................................... 415 384 31
05080053 021-53 Research and Innovative Technology Administration................................................................ 620 21 599
05080056 021-56 Office of Inspector General...................................................................................... 430 372 58
05080061 021-61 Surface Transportation Board..................................................................................... 150 141 9
05080070 021-70 Maritime Administration.......................................................................................... 827 462 365
----------------------------------------
050800ZZ Total, Department of Transportation............................................................................ 57,384 54,460 2,924
========================================
Department of the Treasury:
05081005 015-05 Departmental Offices............................................................................................. 3,035 2,016 1,019
05081006 015-04 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network............................................................................. 309 309 ...........
05081010 015-10 Financial Management Service..................................................................................... 2,134 2,044 90
05081013 015-13 Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau......................................................................... 559 544 15
05081020 015-20 Bureau of Engraving and Printing................................................................................. 2,400 ........... 2,400
05081025 015-25 United States Mint............................................................................................... 2,108 ........... 2,108
05081035 015-35 Bureau of the Public Debt........................................................................................ 1,318 1,301 17
05081045 015-45 Internal Revenue Service......................................................................................... 97,440 96,434 1,006
05081057 015-57 Comptroller of the Currency...................................................................................... 2,791 ........... 2,791
05081058 015-58 Office of Thrift Supervision..................................................................................... 920 ........... 920
----------------------------------------
050810ZZ Total, Department of the Treasury.............................................................................. 113,014 102,648 10,366
========================================
Department of Veterans Affairs:
05082015 029-15 Medical Programs................................................................................................. 203,112 197,758 5,354
05082025 029-25 Benefits Programs................................................................................................ 14,296 13,482 814
05082040 029-40 Departmental Administration...................................................................................... 4,447 2,516 1,931
----------------------------------------
050820ZZ Total, Department of Veterans Affairs.......................................................................... 221,855 213,756 8,099
========================================
Major Independents:
07082500 202-00 Corps of Engineers--Civil Works.................................................................................. 23,522 22,422 1,100
========================================
Other Defense Civil Programs:
07082615 200-15 American Battle Monuments Commission......................................................................... 390 390 ...........
07082620 200-20 Armed Forces Retirement Home................................................................................. 485 485 ...........
07082625 200-25 Cemeterial Expenses.......................................................................................... 100 100 ...........
07082645 200-45 Selective Service System..................................................................................... 154 154 ...........
----------------------------------------
070826ZZ Total, Other Defense Civil Programs........................................................................ 1,129 1,129 ...........
========================================
07083000 020-00 Environmental Protection Agency.................................................................................. 17,635 17,166 469
07083200 100-00 Executive Office of the President................................................................................ 1,832 1,831 1
========================================
General Services Administration:
07084005 023-05 Real Property Activities..................................................................................... 5,759 ........... 5,759
07084010 023-10 Supply and Technology Activities............................................................................. 4,533 61 4,472
07084030 023-30 General Activities........................................................................................... 2,443 956 1,487
----------------------------------------
070840ZZ Total, General Services Administration..................................................................... 12,735 1,017 11,718
========================================
International Assistance Programs:
07084503 184-03 Millennium Challenge Corporation............................................................................. 133 133 ...........
07084515 184-15 Agency for International Development......................................................................... 2,337 2,211 126
07084520 184-20 Overseas Private Investment Corporation...................................................................... 225 225 ...........
07084525 184-25 Trade and Development Agency................................................................................. 50 50 ...........
07084535 184-35 Peace Corps.................................................................................................. 1,171 1,168 3
07084540 184-40 Inter-American Foundation.................................................................................... 47 47 ...........
07084550 184-50 African Development Foundation............................................................................... 32 32 ...........
----------------------------------------
070845ZZ Total, International Assistance Programs................................................................... 3,995 3,866 129
========================================
07085000 026-00 National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................................................................... 19,440 19,271 169
07085200 422-00 National Science Foundation...................................................................................... 1,301 1,301 ...........
07086000 027-00 Office of Personnel Management................................................................................... 4,097 990 3,107
07087000 028-00 Small Business Administration.................................................................................... 4,189 4,178 11
07090000 016-00 Social Security Administration................................................................................... 64,205 63,405 800
Other Independents:
08106000 306-00 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation........................................................................ 45 35 10
08109000 309-00 Appalachian Regional Commission.................................................................................. 11 11 ...........
08110000 310-00 Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board....................................................... 30 30 ...........
08113000 313-00 Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foun..................................................... 2 2 ...........
08114500 514-00 Broadcasting Board of Governors.................................................................................. 2,341 2,341 ...........
08116500 510-00 Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board................................................................... 42 42 ...........
08118500 465-00 Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation....................................................................... 1 1 ...........
08123000 323-00 Commission of Fine Arts.......................................................................................... 10 10 ...........
08126000 326-00 Commission on Civil Rights....................................................................................... 60 60 ...........
08137000 338-00 Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely..................................................... 29 29 ...........
08138000 339-00 Commodity Futures Trading Commission............................................................................. 491 491 ...........
08142000 343-00 Consumer Product Safety Commission............................................................................... 471 471 ...........
08142500 485-00 Corporation for National and Community Service................................................................... 589 589 ...........
08145000 511-00 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the Distr..................................................... 1,390 1,390 ...........
08146000 347-00 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......................................................................... 100 100 ...........
08146200 517-00 Delta Regional Authority......................................................................................... 3 3 ...........
08146500 513-00 Denali Commission................................................................................................ 12 12 ...........
08148500 525-00 Election Assistance Commission................................................................................... 23 23 ...........
08149000 350-00 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.......................................................................... 2,441 2,421 20
08150000 351-00 Export-Import Bank of the United States.......................................................................... 420 420 ...........
08151000 352-00 Farm Credit Administration....................................................................................... 294 ........... 294
08154000 355-00 Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation......................................................................... 10 10 ...........
08155000 356-00 Federal Communications Commission................................................................................ 1,999 21 1,978
========================================
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
08156010 357-10 Bank Insurance............................................................................................... 4,223 4,223 ...........
08156020 357-20 Savings Association Insurance................................................................................ 619 619 ...........
08156030 357-30 FSLIC Resolution............................................................................................. 228 228 ...........
08156040 357-40 FDIC--Office of Inspector General............................................................................ 160 160 ...........
----------------------------------------
081560ZZ Total, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation............................................................... 5,230 5,230 ...........
========================================
08159000 360-00 Federal Election Commission...................................................................................... 391 391 ...........
08161000 362-00 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Appraisal..................................................... 7 7 ...........
08163000 364-00 Federal Housing Finance Board.................................................................................... 146 ........... 146
08164000 365-00 Federal Labor Relations Authority................................................................................ 175 175 ...........
08165000 366-00 Federal Maritime Commission...................................................................................... 133 133 ...........
08166000 367-00 Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service....................................................................... 285 276 9
08167000 368-00 Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission................................................................. 45 45 ...........
08168000 369-00 Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board....................................................................... 101 101 ...........
08169000 370-00 Federal Trade Commission......................................................................................... 1,080 430 650
08171000 372-00 Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation........................................................................... 5 5 ...........
08173500 467-00 Intelligence Community Management Account........................................................................ 318 318 ...........
08177000 378-00 International Trade Commission................................................................................... 380 380 ...........
08180000 381-00 James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation..................................................................... 6 6 ...........
08181000 382-00 Japan-United States Friendship Commission........................................................................ 6 6 ...........
08186000 387-00 Marine Mammal Commission......................................................................................... 11 11 ...........
08188000 389-00 Merit Systems Protection Board................................................................................... 228 202 26
08188500 487-00 Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Envir..................................................... 29 29 ...........
08192000 393-00 National Archives and Records Administration..................................................................... 2,870 1,459 1,411
08193000 394-00 National Capital Planning Commission............................................................................. 57 57 ...........
08199000 400-00 National Commission on Libraries and Information Science......................................................... 6 6 ...........
08212000 413-00 National Council on Disability................................................................................... 14 14 ...........
08214000 415-00 National Credit Union Administration............................................................................. 963 2 961
08216000 417-00 National Endowment for the Arts.................................................................................. 160 160 ...........
08217000 418-00 National Endowment for the Humanities............................................................................ 175 170 5
08217500 474-00 Institute of Museum and Library Services......................................................................... 57 57 ...........
08219000 420-00 National Labor Relations Board................................................................................... 1,865 1,865 ...........
08220000 421-00 National Mediation Board......................................................................................... 52 52 ...........
08223000 424-00 National Transportation Safety Board............................................................................. 416 416 ...........
08228000 429-00 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................................................................................... 3,125 3,108 17
08230000 431-00 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............................................................................. 18 18 ...........
08231000 432-00 Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission................................................................. 69 69 ...........
08233000 434-00 Office of Government Ethics...................................................................................... 80 80 ...........
08234000 435-00 Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation...................................................................... 51 51 ...........
08235000 436-00 Office of Special Counsel........................................................................................ 113 113 ...........
08240000 512-00 Presidio Trust................................................................................................... 307 ........... 307
08245000 446-00 Railroad Retirement Board........................................................................................ 1,025 975 50
08248000 449-00 Securities and Exchange Commission............................................................................... 3,933 3,932 1
08251000 452-00 Smithsonian Institution.......................................................................................... 5,577 5,577 ...........
08254000 455-00 Tennessee Valley Authority....................................................................................... 12,019 ........... 12,019
08254600 345-00 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims............................................................... 98 98 ...........
08255000 456-00 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.......................................................................... 248 248 ...........
----------------------------------------
99999999 Report Total................................................................................................... 1,871,194 1,427,590 443,604
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a funding estimate for the DOC portion of
the HCHB renovation by fiscal year for the project.
Answer. The Department is requesting $4.3 million for its portion
of the HCHB renovation in fiscal year 2008. The total estimated cost
for the Department is $21.6 million, through 2020.
Question. Please provide an itemized listing of the $4.3 million
requested for HCHB renovation.
Answer. The itemized listing of the $4.3 million requested for HCHB
renovation follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relocation and Planning................................. $156,000
DOC Construction Costs.................................. 1,441,000
Equipment and Furniture................................. 2,117,000
Security................................................ 56,000
IT...................................................... 530,000
---------------
Total............................................. 4,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much does DOC spend on maintenance of the HCHB? What
is the source of those funds? Does GSA provide any funding to support
HCHB maintenance?
Answer. DOC spent approximately $12,413,000 for maintenance of the
HCHB in fiscal year 2006. The source of funds is from the HCHB tenants
through the Departmental Management's Working Capital Fund. GSA does
not provide any funding to support HCHB maintenance.
departmental management--media questions
Question. We understand that Commerce has been revising its over 20
year old communications policy for the last few months. What is the
status of the policy and when can we expect it to be released and
implemented?
Answer. On March 29, the Department released its new public
communication policy, following three separate rounds of internal input
from our employees, in particular our scientists, on the draft policy.
The policy will take effect on May 14, following a 45 day time period
to conduct training and outreach sessions with employees.
Question. What steps will the Department take to ensure that all
staff are informed of and understand how to implement the policy?
Answer. We have publicly released the policy along with
``Frequently Asked Question'' document, and placed both on our website.
We are providing a 45 day window of time before the policy takes effect
in order to conduct training and outreach sessions with current
employees. We are also considering ways to require annual ``refresher''
sessions as well as to require training for new employees.
Question. Will the revised policy include language to specifically
address recent concerns raised by scientists regarding interference
with the dissemination of their research results?
Answer. Yes, the new policy provides a series of clear principles
which reiterate the Department's support for the open exchange of
scientific ideas, information, and research. The policy also
specifically provides for Fundamental Research Communications (a
communications ``carve-out'' for scientific research), a series of best
practices for public affairs employees, and provides operating units
with the flexibility to use existing, or issue new, guidance regarding
the implementation of the new policy (as long as it is consistent with
the Department policy).
Question. Specifically, will the new policy define the types of
media contacts, press releases, presentations, or other documents that
would be subject to the policy?
Answer. Yes, the policy provides clear definitions of what types of
documents are covered by the policy.
Question. Describe situations, if any, in which prior approval is
required for press releases and media interviews.
Answer. Yes, the policy describes the situations, if applicable,
which require prior approval for press releases and media interviews.
Question. If prior approval is required, describe the specific
process for approving press releases and media interviews.
Answer. The Department's policy provides an overall conceptual
framework for public communications, and set general Department-wide
guidelines. Because the 13 agencies within the Department are so
diverse, the new policy will provide operating units the flexibility to
continue to set more specific procedures, which must be consistent with
the overall Department policy.
Question. Explicitly delegate authority to approve releases or
interviews of a time sensitive nature or local interest to appropriate
levels within the Commerce agencies.
Answer. Yes, the new policy explicitly delegates authority to
approve releases or interviews of a time sensitive or local interest to
appropriate levels within the Commerce agencies.
Question. Affirm that scientists can express personal views and
share those views with the media as long as they declare them to be
their own.
Answer. Yes, the policy specifically includes a section explaining
how employees may communicate their personal views with an appropriate
disclaimer.
Question. Define the role of the Office of Public Affairs office
with regard to facilitating the dissemination of research.
Answer. Yes, the new policy defines the role of the Office of
Public Affairs with regard to facilitating the dissemination of
research. Each operating unit will have the flexibility to continue to
use existing or issue new guidance regarding the implementation and
interpretation of the policy, which must comport with the overall
Department policy.
Question. Delineate a process to resolve disputes regarding
dissemination of research.
Answer. Yes, the new policy delineates a process to resolve
disputes regarding dissemination of research.
special bill language
Question. Please provide an explanation/background of each of the
provisions within the Commerce portion of the appropriations bill. For
example, under ITA there is the following provision, ``purchase or
construction of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use
abroad.'' Why is special language required? Isn't this a ``necessary''
expense?
Census Bureau (Account: PC&P)
``: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this or any other
Act for any fiscal year may be used for the collection of Census data
on race identification that does not include `some other race' as a
category.''
Census was considering eliminating the ``Some Other Race'' category
on the questionnaire and putting the Hispanic check box at the top of
the list. Congress opposed that option out of concern that it would
deter Hispanics' self-identification of those who did not also fit into
any of the standard race categories, thereby possibly under recording
Hispanic populations.
Departmental Management (Account: S&E)
``For expenses necessary for the departmental management of the
Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not to exceed
$5,000 for official entertainment, $47,466,000: Provided, That not to
exceed 11 full-time equivalents and $1,490,000 shall be expended for
the legislative affairs function of the Department.''
Appropriated funds may not be used for entertainment expenses
except when specifically authorized by law. This provision authorizes
the Secretary to use up to $5,000 from appropriated funds for
entertaining foreign dignitaries and U.S. citizens who are involved in
activities of interest to the Department.
Congress added language imposing a ceiling on the legislative
affairs function of the Department was included beginning in the fiscal
year 2004 Appropriations Act.
International Trade Administration
``For necessary expenses for international trade activities of the
Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for engaging in trade
promotional activities abroad, including expenses of grants and
cooperative agreements for the purpose of promoting exports of United
States firms, without regard to the provisions of law set forth in 44
U.S.C. 3702 and 3703;''
44 U.S.C. 3702 specifies that an executive department may not
publish or pay for advertisements without written authority from the
head of that department.
The nature of ITA's overseas exhibition program requires maximum
flexibility in advertising requirements since exhibitions may be
changed, added, or canceled. When such changes take place,
advertisements must be placed as soon as possible to inform the local
business community. This exception from 44 U.S.C. 3702 will provide the
flexibility, which is required to effectively advertise for these
exhibitions.
44 U.S.C. 3703 stipulates that prices paid for advertising may not
exceed the commercial rates charged to private individuals, with the
usual discounts. Since the United States Government does not have
sovereign status in other countries and is charged commercial rates
without the discounts required by 44 U.S.C. 3703, this exception is
necessary to permit contracting in a manner which conforms to the
realities of foreign advertising markets.
``full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate families
of employees stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted
overseas;''
This language permits the International Trade Administration to
extend to certain of its overseas employees the same benefits afforded
domestically employed Federal employees and employees of ITA's Foreign
Commercial Service in equivalent positions overseas.
``travel and transportation of employees of the United States and
Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad, without regard to
49 U.S.C. 40118;''
49 U.S.C. 40118(d) exempts State and USAID officials from the
requirement that government travel between two points outside the
United States be accomplished by U.S. air carrier. This phrase
clarifies that U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service officers are
included in the exemption, notwithstanding a Comptroller General
decision to the contrary. This exemption is necessary and appropriate
in that most of the travel undertaken by U.S. and Foreign Commercial
Service officers occurs abroad, where U.S. air carriers are generally
not reasonably available.
``employment of Americans and aliens by contract for services;''
44 CG 761, OPM guidance, and House Report 89-188 have concluded
that Federal agencies must have specific authority to employ personnel
by contract. In order to present its overseas exhibitions, ITA often
requires the use of narrators, demonstrators, receptionists, clerical,
and facilities maintenance personnel who speak the language of the host
country; are familiar with local practices and procedures; or who only
need to be employed for a short period of time. In addition, in some
cases, it is more advantageous to employ U.S. citizens in the host
country (generally members of an employee's family) because they have
greater familiarity with American methods and, therefore, require less
effort to train.
``rental of space abroad for periods not exceeding 10 years, and
expenses of alteration, repair, or improvement;''
Buildings, pavilions, and space in such structures must be rented
for overseas exhibitions. However, rental terms are typically set by
schedules established by fair authorities and are not negotiated or
established competitively. In addition, organizers may limit the build-
out to approved contractors at scheduled prices. This phrase clarifies
that ITA may enter into leases for real property and make such
improvements as are necessary without limitation.
``purchase or construction of temporary demountable exhibition
structures for use abroad;''
40 U.S.C. 601 prohibits the construction of public buildings except
by the Administrator of the General Services Administration. Authority
to purchase or construct such demountable structures is necessary to
allow ITA to present exhibitions overseas when permanent exhibition
facilities are not available.
``payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first
paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries;''
28 U.S.C. 2672 provides for settlement of tort claims for monetary
damages of $25,000 or less against the Unites States by the head of
each federal agency for loss of property or personal injury or death
caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of
the Government while acting within the scope of his employment in
circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be
liable under local law. However, 28 U.S.C. 2680 exempts the settlement
of tort claims which arise abroad from the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
2672. The language exempts ITA from 22 U.S.C. 2680 and covers the
settlement of tort claims against the United States, which arise in
connection with the ITA's trade promotion activities abroad.
``not to exceed $327,000 for official representation expenses
abroad;''
Appropriated Funds are generally not available for official
representation, absent specific statutory authority. This gives ITA the
authority to spend up to $327,000 on official representation abroad.
``purchase of passenger motor vehicles for official use abroad, not
to exceed $45,000 per vehicle; obtaining insurance on official motor
vehicles, and rental of tie lines;''
Per 31 U.S.C. 1343, an appropriation may be expended to purchase
passenger motor vehicles only as specifically authorized by law and
places certain limitations on the total cost of such vehicles. The
annual appropriations act sets the general limits on the total cost of
the vehicles. This language provides ITA with the authority to exceed
the general amount (up to $45,000) so that it can purchase vehicles
abroad.
``$406,925,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007, of
which $8,000,000 is to be derived from fees to be retained and used by
the International Trade Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302''
Per 31 U.S.C. 3302, agencies may not retain or use fees unless
specifically authorized by law. This language provides ITA the
necessary authorization to use these collections to offset its
appropriation.
``That negotiations shall be conducted within the World Trade
Organization to recognize the right of members to distribute monies
collected from antidumping and countervailing duties:''
This language added by Congress directed ITA to work with USTR to
continue negotiations with the WTO regarding the ``Byrd Amendment''. In
2003, the WTO ruled the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000 or ``CDSOA'' (Byrd Amendment), which provides for the distribution
of duties to the domestic parties that supported the petition under
certain circumstance, was not in compliance.
When the President signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 on
February 8, 2006, legislation was enacted that will bring the United
States into compliance with the WTO Dispute Settlement Body ruling on
the Byrd Amendment--the legislation repeals the Byrd Amendment for
entries made on or after October 1, 2007.
``: Provided further, That the provisions of the first sentence of
section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities without regard to section 5412
of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C.
4912);''
Having the references to 22 U.S.C. 2245(f) and 2458(c) in the
annual appropriations act permits the International Trade
Administration (ITA) to accept, retain, and expend or otherwise utilize
contributions of funds, property, and services from foreign
governments, international organizations and private individuals,
firms, associations, agencies and other groups for the purposes of
furthering ITA's mission as generally defined in the annual
appropriations act, namely trade promotion and international trade
activities. Among other activities, ITA relies on this authority to
charge, retain, and expend fees for export promotion services
benefiting individual U.S. exporters.
15 U.S.C. 4912 states that the Secretary shall provide reasonable
public services and access (including electronic access) to any
information maintained as part of the National Trade Data Bank and may
charge reasonable fees consistent with section 552 of title 5 (the
Freedom of Information Act, which includes specific provisions
regarding fees to be assessed under that Act). Authorizing ITA to carry
out these activities without regard to 15 U.S.C. 4912 allows ITA to
charge other than the public services and access fees for export
promotion services, even when such services rely on or incorporate data
contained in the National Trade Data Bank.
``and that for the purpose of this Act, contributions under the
provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall
include payment for assessments for services provided as part of these
activities.''
This provision was added in 1990 to clarify a question pending at
the time with GAO concerning whether ITA's authority to accept
contributions under MECEA was limited to voluntary gifts. This
explicitly gives ITA the authority to accept contributions as
assessments or fees as well as gifts.
``Provided further, That the International Trade Administration
shall be exempt from the requirements of Circular A-25 (or any
successor administrative regulation or policy) issued by the Office of
Management and Budget:''
This language, inserted by Congress, increases the flexibility that
ITA has in the establishment of prices and fees for services beyond
that allowed by OMB Circular A-25.
``: Provided further, That negotiations shall be conducted within
the World Trade Organization consistent with the negotiating objectives
contained in the Trade Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210.''
The principle textile and apparel negotiating objectives handed to
the U.S. government in the Trade Act of 2002 are as follows:
(16) Textile Negotiations.--The principle negotiating objectives of
the United States with respect to trade in textiles and apparel
articles are to obtain competitive opportunities for United States
exports of textiles and apparel in foreign markets substantially
equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in
United States markets and to achieve fairer and more open conditions of
trade in textiles and apparel.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
``Provided further, That not less than 657 full-time equivalents,
690 positions and $85,017,000 shall be for the examination of trademark
applications; and not less than 5,810 full-time equivalents, 6,241
positions and $906,142,000 shall be for the examination and searching
of patent applications: Provided further, That not more than 265 full-
time equivalents, 272 positions and $37,490,000 shall be for the Office
of the General Counsel: Provided further, That not more than 82 full-
time equivalents, 83 positions and $25,393,000 shall be for the Office
of the Administrator for External Affairs:''
Congress wanted to ensure that the core examination functions were
properly staffed and funded.
``Provided further, That any deviation from the full-time
equivalent, position, and funding designations set forth in the
preceding four provisos shall be subject to the procedures set forth in
section 605 of this Act:''
This reprogramming provision was added after fiscal year 2005
because the floors and ceilings are statutory and Congress had to give
us a legal way of reprogramming if we weren't going to hit our levels.
When we tried to reprogram in fiscal year 2005, staff pointed out that
it was the law that we hit the levels specified, neither they nor we
had any discretion in the matter.
``Provided further, That from amounts provided herein, not to
exceed $1,000 shall be made available in fiscal year 2006 for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31, United States Code, no
employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office may accept
payment or reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel,
subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling an
employee to attend and participate in a convention, conference, or
meeting when the entity offering payment or reimbursement is a person
or corporation subject to regulation by the Office, or represents a
person or corporation subject to regulation by the Office, unless the
person or corporation is an organization exempt from taxation pursuant
to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:''
Appropriators were concerned that PTO officials had been accepting
invitational travel, usually from non-profits but occasionally from
other entities. This also ended the invitational examiner education
program.
``: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2006, from the amounts
made available for `Salaries and Expenses' for the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (PTO), the amounts necessary to pay: (1) the
difference between the percentage of basic pay contributed by the PTO
and employees under section 8334(a) of title 5, United States Code, and
the normal cost percentage (as defined by section 8331(17) of that
title) of basic pay, of employees subject to subchapter III of chapter
83 of that title; and (2) the present value of the otherwise unfunded
accruing costs, as determined by the Office of Personnel Management, of
post-retirement life insurance and post-retirement health benefits
coverage for all PTO employees, shall be transferred to the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the Employees Life Insurance
Fund, and the Employees Health Benefits Fund, as appropriate, and shall
be available for the authorized purposes of those accounts.''
OPM had been paying certain amounts on behalf of USPTO for CSRS
retirement, health insurance, and life insurance. Because PTO is fully-
user fee funded, the Administration proposed that USPTO should pay the
full costs of its employees' benefits.
Bureau of Industry and Security
``That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and
all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out
these activities''
The MECEA language is intended to allow BIS to receive and retain
the funds it receives from attendees at BIS export training programs,
such as Update. Without this language, all money received from
attendees would have to be deposited in Treasury.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
``: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the Secretary
of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs incurred in
spectrum management, analysis and operations, and related services and
such fees shall be retained and used as offsetting collections for
costs of such spectrum services, to remain available until expended.''
In 1996, Congress asked NTIA to investigate the feasibility of
charging federal agencies for spectrum management services. NTIA
proposed to Congress that each agency be charged in proportion to its
use of the spectrum, using a simple fee-per-assignment formula. As a
result, Congress enacted language in the fiscal year 1996
appropriation, Public Law 104-134, which authorized the Secretary of
Commerce to charge federal agencies for spectrum management, analysis,
operations, and related services to cover spectrum management costs.
Because NTIA experienced significant difficulties collecting fees
from multiple federal agencies, Congress subsequently enacted
additional language in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation, Public Law
104-208, which authorized the Secretary of Commerce to charge fees, but
also specified that the federal agencies shall pay the fees charged by
NTIA for spectrum management costs or they would have to cease using
the spectrum.
Through NTIA's annual appropriation, Congress has enacted this
authority each fiscal year. Currently, NTIA uses this authority to
collect 80 percent of its costs for spectrum management services each
fiscal year. The specific legislative language is necessary to permit
NTIA to continue to collect spectrum management fees without the
particular requirements of the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535(d)) being
imposed on the transfer of funds and to prevent the expiration of funds
transferred from other agencies for NTIA's ongoing spectrum management
services.
``: Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce is authorized
to retain and use as offsetting collections all funds transferred, or
previously transferred, from other Government agencies for all costs
incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and related
activities by the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of NTIA, in
furtherance of its assigned functions under this paragraph, and such
funds received from other Government agencies shall remain available
until expended.''
NTIA's laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, the Institute of
Telecommunication Sciences, (ITS) performs spectrum-related research
and analysis for other federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. Due to
the nature of this work, which involves projects that do not fit into a
fiscal year timetable, it is necessary for NTIA to ensure that the
funds transferred from other agencies for this reimbursable work do not
expire at the fiscal year's end. Frequently, projects and related
funding need to be carried over into the next fiscal year. Therefore,
NTIA continues to need authorization to prevent the expiration of funds
transferred from other agencies for ITS reimbursable projects.
Currently, ITS reimbursable projects constitute about 60 percent of its
annual budget.
Operations Research and Facilities
``Provided, That fees and donations received by the National Ocean
Service for the management of national marine sanctuaries may be
retained and used for the salaries and expenses associated with those
activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302:''
Per 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees and donations are not available to be
retained and used by agencies without specific authority.
``Provided further, That in addition, $3,000,000 shall be derived
by transfer from the fund entitled `Coastal Zone Management' and in
addition $67,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the fund
entitled `Promote and Develop Fishery Products and Research Pertaining
to American Fisheries':''
This language transfers funds from special NOAA accounts to
Operations, Research, and Facilities account (ORF) to partially offset
the appropriation.
$67 million was transferred from the Promote and Develop account to
the ORF account. The Promote and Develop account is funded by a thirty
percent levy on imported fish product duties and transferred from the
Department of Agriculture to the Promote and Develop American Fishery
Products account.
$3 million was transferred from the Coastal Zone Management Fund.
This fund was established by the Costal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). The fund consists of loan repayments from
the former Coastal energy Impact Program. The proceeds are to be used
to offset the Operations, Research, and Facilities account for the
costs of implementing the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended.
``Provided further, That no general administrative charge shall be
applied against an assigned activity included in this Act or the report
accompanying this Act:''
This proviso is included to forestall NOAA from paying for general
administration via a tax on the line offices and specific projects
contained in the report language.
``Provided further, That the total amount available for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration corporate services
administrative support costs shall not exceed $179,036,000:''
This proviso strengthens the previous proviso and puts a hard cap
on NOAA administration costs.
``Provided further, That payments of funds made available under
this heading to the Department of Commerce Working Capital Fund
including Department of Commerce General Counsel legal services shall
not exceed $34,000,000:''
This proviso is included to limit the Department's assessment of
NOAA for Working Capital Fund costs.
``Provided further, That any deviation from the amounts designated
for specific activities in the report accompanying this Act, or any use
of deobligated balances of funds provided under this heading in
previous years, shall be subject to the procedures set forth in section
605 of this Act:''
This strengthens the force of the report language by requiring a
notification to the Appropriations Committees if NOAA deviates from it,
and increases oversight of spending from deobligations by requiring
notification as well.
``Provided further, That grants to States pursuant to sections 306
and 306A of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, shall
not exceed $2,000,000, unless funds provided for `Coastal Zone
Management Grants' exceed funds provided in the previous fiscal year:''
This language requires NOAA to divide up CZM grants fairly equally
between the states (by formula), protecting states with small
coastlines and preventing states with long coastlines (CA, AK, FL) from
receiving the bulk of the grant funds.
``Provided further, That if funds provided for `Coastal Zone
Management Grants' exceed funds provided in the previous fiscal year,
then no State shall receive more than 5 percent or less than 1 percent
of the additional funds:''
This language was inserted to ensure that if more funds were
available for CZM than in the prior year, all participating states
would benefit.
``Provided further, That the personnel management demonstration
project established at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4703 may be expanded by 3,500 full-
time positions to include up to 6,925 full-time positions and may be
extended indefinitely:''
This language expanded the scope of the payroll demonstration
project.
``Provided further, That the Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration may engage in formal and informal
education activities, including primary and secondary education,
related to the agency's mission goals:''
This provides specific authorization for NOAA to engage in
educational activities.
``: Provided further, That, in accordance with the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), within funds appropriated
under this heading, $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended,
for the cost of loans under section 211(e) of title II of division C of
Public Law 105-277, such loans to have terms of up to 30 years and to
be available for use in any of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
fisheries.''
This language provided a $2 million subsidy to cover the costs
associated with a $200 million loan to the Community Develop Quota
fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. These loans have
terms of up to 30 years.
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction
``Provided, That of the amounts provided for the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, funds shall only
be made available on a dollar for dollar matching basis with funds
provided for the same purpose by the Department of Defense:''
This proviso was included because of concern that DOD would shift
costs to NOAA by under funding their portion of the project.
``Provided further, That except to the extent expressly prohibited
by any other law, the Department of Defense may delegate procurement
functions related to the National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System to officials of the Department of
Commerce pursuant to section 2311 of title 10, United States Code:''
Air Force officials asserted that NOAA officials could not perform
certain procurement functions because they were not authorized to do
so. This proviso was included to satisfy the need for authorization.
``Provided further, That any deviation from the amounts designated
for specific activities in the report accompanying this Act, or any use
of deobligated balances of funds provided under this heading in
previous years, shall be subject to the procedures set forth in section
605 of this Act:''
This strengthens the force of the report language by requiring a
notification to the Appropriations Committees if NOAA deviates from it,
and increases oversight of spending from deobligations by requiring
notification as well.
``Provided further, That beginning in fiscal year 2007 and for each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of Commerce shall include in the
budget justification materials that the Secretary submits to Congress
in support of the Department of Commerce budget (as submitted with the
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code) an estimate for each National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration procurement, acquisition and construction program having
a total multiyear program cost of more than $5,000,000 and an estimate
of the budgetary requirements for each such program for each of the
five subsequent fiscal years:''
This proviso was added by Congress and requires five years of
outyear projections for programs with total costs of $5 million or
more.
``Provided further, That subject to amounts provided in advance in
appropriations Acts, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to enter
into a lease with The Regents of the University of California for land
at the San Diego Campus in La Jolla for a term not less than 55
years:''
NOAA is seeking to replace its Southwest Fisheries Science
Laboratory at La Jolla, CA, because it sits at the edge of a cliff that
is receding. Because the University of California offered suitable land
nearby but required a long-term lease, NOAA needed specific
authorization to enter into a lease of more than 20 years in order to
consider the offer.
``: Provided further, That funds appropriated for the construction
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Regional
Center are an additional increment in the incremental funding planned
for the Center, and may be expended incrementally, through multi-year
contracts for construction and related activities, provided that
obligations under any such multi-year contract shall be subject to the
availability of appropriations.''
This provides NOAA greater flexibility in spending the funds for
the Pacific Regional Center. Usually, NOAA would require appropriations
in an amount that would build or buy something that would be useful
even without further appropriation. However, even the major increments
for this project are substantially in excess of the amounts provided to
date. Without this authorization, NOAA would not be able to spend the
funds appropriated, and they would expire unused.
Fisheries Finance Program Account
``Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying such
loans, shall be as defined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990:''
Loans given out under the Fisheries Finance Program are to use
accounting principles specified under the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990.
``Provided further, That these funds are only available to
subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $5,000,000 for Individual Fishing Quota loans, and not to
exceed $59,000,000 for traditional direct loans, of which $19,000,000
may be used for direct loans to the United States menhaden fishery:''
Provides loan authority for two loan programs.
Direct loan authority of $5 million was given for Individual
Fishing Quota (IFQ). These loans provide fishery wide financing to ease
the transition to sustainable fisheries through its fishing capacity
reduction programs and provides financial assistance in the form of
loans to fishermen who fish from small vessels and entry level
fishermen to promote stability and reduce consolidation in already
rationalized fisheries.
Provides direct loan authority of $59 million was given for
Traditional Direct loans. Traditional Direct Loans are available to
U.S. citizens who otherwise qualify for financing or refinancing the
construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, and in some cases, the
purchasing of fishing vessels, shoreside processing, aquaculture, and
mariculture facilities. Language was also included directing that of
the $59 million in traditional loans, priority should be given to
providing $19 million in direct loans to the menhaden fishery.
``: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this heading may be used for direct loans for any new fishing vessel
that will increase the harvesting capacity in any United States
fishery.''
This proviso makes it unlawful for a fisherman to use Fisheries
Finance Program loans to modify or replace a fishing vessel such that
it would materially increase the harvesting capacity of the fishery.
This language prevents fisheries finance program loans from
contributing to over-fishing.
economic development representative
Question. The Economic Development Representative (EDR) that
services Maryland has been vacant for well over a year. When will this
vacancy be filled? If not, please explain.
Answer. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has initiated
the competitive civil service recruitment process to fill the vacant
Economic Development Representative (EDR) position in the Maryland/West
Virginia office. This office is to be located in West Virginia but
would have convenient access to Maryland. EDA currently has five vacant
EDR positions nationwide. Recruitment is currently underway to fill the
three vacancies located in Maryland/West Virginia, Minnesota, and
Missouri. EDA anticipates the recruitment process to fill the other two
vacancies will begin sometime in April.
unobligated balance levels
Question. Please provide unobligated balance levels for the S&E
appropriation and the Economic Development Assistance Program
appropriation for fiscal years 2001 through 2006.
Answer. The following unobligated balance levels are provided for
the S&E appropriation and the Economic Development Assistance Program
appropriation for fiscal years 2001 through 2006. The EDAP balances
primarily consist of deobligations of prior year obligations, and were
re-obligated against new projects in subsequent years.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year \1\ S&E EDAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.......................................... 240 63,777
2002.......................................... 42 11,902
2003.......................................... 338 14,826
2004.......................................... \2\ 912 15,355
2005.......................................... 20 10,965
2006.......................................... \3\ 96 10,757
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Balances were for year end for each year.
\2\ Balance due to EOY DOD reimbursable credit.
\3\ As corrected.
economic development administration cut
Question. What will be the consequence of an $80 million cut in EDA
grants? How many fewer projects will be funded? How many communities
will not receive assistance?
Answer. We believe the President's budget balances competing
priorities and provides sufficient resources for the agency to
accomplish its mission. A funding level of $170 million will provide
60-65 public works-type grants and 25 economic adjustment-type
construction grants, which will generate 19,000 new higher-skill jobs.
EDA will focus these resources on the Nation's most distressed
communities. EDA fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 funding levels
supported approximately 140 investments.
staffing breakout
Question. Please provide a staffing breakout (including
contractors) at headquarters and at each of the regional offices as of
the end of each fiscal year (2001-2006) as well as a current breakout
as of the latest pay period. Provide staffing levels by appointment,
grade, and position.
Answer. Attachment 5 lists on-board staffing, including
contractors, at headquarters and each regional office at the end of
each fiscal year, and the current staffing, including appointment,
grade and position.
ATTACHMENT 5.--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION STAFFING CHART AS OF 3/20/2007--EMPLOYEES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Positions Appointment Grade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Assistant Secretary... Assistant Secretary........................ Political......... ( \1\ )
Office of the Assistant Secretary... DAS for Economic Development............... Political......... ( \2\ )
Office of the Assistant Secretary... Senior Advisor to Assistant Secretary...... Political......... ( \2\ )
Office of the Assistant Secretary... Special Advisor............................ Political......... 11
Office of the Assistant Secretary... Confidential Assistant..................... Political......... 11
Office of the Assistant Secretary... Secretary.................................. Career............ 10
Office of Chief Counsel............. Chief Counsel.............................. Career............ 15
Office of Chief Counsel............. Attorney Advisor........................... Career............ 14
Office of Chief Counsel............. Attorney Advisor........................... Career............ 14
Office of Chief Counsel............. Paralegal.................................. Career............ 12
Office of Chief Counsel............. Administrative Assistant................... Career............ 8
Office of Management Services....... CFO/DAS for Management Services............ Career............ ( \2\ )
Office of Management Services....... Secretary.................................. Career............ 8
Office of Management Services....... Program Analyst--PMF....................... Career............ 12
Office of Management Services....... Deputy CFO/Director Administration & Career............ 15
Support Svs Div.
Office of Management Services....... Human Resources............................ Career............ 15
Office of Management Services....... Management Analyst......................... Career............ 14
Office of Management Services....... Management Analyst......................... Career............ 13
Office of Management Services....... Management Analyst......................... Career............ 13
Office of Management Services....... Financial Analyst.......................... Career............ 14
Office of Management Services....... Accountant................................. Career............ 14
Office of Management Services....... Accountant................................. Career............ 13
Office of Management Services....... Director, Budgeting & Performance Career............ 15
Evaluation Division.
Office of Management Services....... Senior Program Analyst..................... Career............ 14
Office of Management Services....... Program Analyst............................ Career............ 13
Office of Management Services....... Program Analyst............................ Career............ 13
Office of Management Services....... Program Analyst............................ Career............ 7
Office of Management Services....... Grant Specialist--PMF...................... Career............ 11
Office of Management Services....... Budget Analyst............................. Career............ 13
Office of Information Technology.... Chief Information Officer.................. Career............ 15
Office of Information Technology.... Information Tech Specialist................ Career............ 14
Office of Information Technology.... Information Tech Specialist................ Career............ 13
Office of Information Technology.... Information Tech Specialist................ Career............ 11
Office of Information Technology.... Information Tech Specialist................ Career............ 7
Office of External Affairs and DAS for External Affairs and Communications Political......... ( \2\ )
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Secretary.................................. Career............ 8
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Director, Public Affairs................... Political......... 15
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Web Master................................. Career............ 13
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Senior Public Affairs Specialist........... Career............ 13
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Public Affairs Specialist.................. Career............ 12
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Prog Comm Specialist Team Leader........... Career............ 15
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Management Analyst......................... Career............ 13
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Intergovernmental Affairs Specialist....... Career............ 13
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Investment Information Specialist.......... Career............ 12
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Comm & Cong Liaison Spec................... Career............ 12
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Investment Information Specialist.......... Career............ 12
Communications.
Office of External Affairs and Program Communications Asst................ Career............ 7
Communications.
Atlanta Regional Office............. Regional Director.......................... Career............ ( \2\ )
Atlanta Regional Office............. EDR/Kentucky............................... Career............ 13
Atlanta Regional Office............. EDR/Mississippi............................ Career............ 13
Atlanta Regional Office............. Administrative Officer..................... Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Econ Dev Prog Spec......................... Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Econ Dev Prog Spec......................... Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Econ Dev Assistant......................... Career............ 6
Atlanta Regional Office............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 14
Atlanta Regional Office............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Atlanta Regional Office............. IT Specialist.............................. Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Project Manager............................ Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Chief, Public Works & Econ Adjust.......... Career............ 14
Atlanta Regional Office............. Program Specialist......................... Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Program Specialist......................... Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Program Specialist......................... Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Econ Dev Prog Spec......................... Career............ 11
Atlanta Regional Office............. Regional Counsel........................... Career............ 15
Atlanta Regional Office............. Econ Dev Prog Spec......................... Career............ 12
Atlanta Regional Office............. Secretary O/A.............................. Career............ 6
Austin Regional Office.............. Regional Director.......................... Career............ ( \2\ )
Austin Regional Office.............. Regional Counsel........................... Career............ 15
Austin Regional Office.............. Environmental Specialist................... Career............ 13
Austin Regional Office.............. Area Director.............................. Career............ 14
Austin Regional Office.............. EDR/Louisiana.............................. Career............ 13
Austin Regional Office.............. Senior Program Specialist.................. Career............ 13
Austin Regional Office.............. Econ Dev Prog Specialist................... Career............ 12
Austin Regional Office.............. Mgmt Analyst............................... Career............ 12
Austin Regional Office.............. Area Director.............................. Career............ 14
Austin Regional Office.............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Austin Regional Office.............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Austin Regional Office.............. OPCS Officer............................... Career............ 12
Austin Regional Office.............. Office Tech/Office Auto.................... Career............ 5
Austin Regional Office.............. Area Director.............................. Career............ 14
Austin Regional Office.............. EDR--Arkansas.............................. Career............ 13
Austin Regional Office.............. Econ Dev Prog Specialist................... Career............ 12
Austin Regional Office.............. Econ Dev Prog Specialist................... Career............ 12
Austin Regional Office.............. Econ Dev Prog Specialist................... Career............ 12
Chicago Regional Office............. Regional Director.......................... Career............ ( \2\ )
Chicago Regional Office............. Regional Counsel........................... Career............ 15
Chicago Regional Office............. EDR/Ohio/Indiana........................... Career............ 13
Chicago Regional Office............. EEO Specialist............................. Career............ 13
Chicago Regional Office............. Econ Dev Prog Specialist................... Career............ 9
Chicago Regional Office............. Supv Program Specialist.................... Career............ 14
Chicago Regional Office............. Engineer................................... Career............ 13
Chicago Regional Office............. EA Program Specialist...................... Career............ 12
Chicago Regional Office............. PW Program Specialist...................... Career............ 12
Chicago Regional Office............. PW Program Specialist...................... Career............ 12
Chicago Regional Office............. Supervisory Econ Dev Prog Spec............. Career............ 14
Chicago Regional Office............. Engineer................................... Career............ 13
Chicago Regional Office............. EA Program Specialist...................... Career............ 12
Chicago Regional Office............. OPCS Officer............................... Career............ 14
Chicago Regional Office............. Administrative Officer..................... Career............ 12
Chicago Regional Office............. Secretary.................................. Career............ 6
Chicago Regional Office............. Secretary.................................. Career............ 6
Chicago Regional Office............. Coordinator................................ Career............ 14
Denver Regional Office.............. Regional Director.......................... Career............ ( \2\ )
Denver Regional Office.............. Regional Counsel........................... Career............ 15
Denver Regional Office.............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Denver Regional Office.............. OPCS Officer/Computer Spec................. Career............ 12
Denver Regional Office.............. Admin Officer.............................. Career............ 12
Denver Regional Office.............. Program Specialist......................... Career............ 12
Denver Regional Office.............. Program Specialist......................... Career............ 11
Denver Regional Office.............. Community Planner.......................... Career............ 13
Denver Regional Office.............. East Team Leader........................... Career............ 14
Denver Regional Office.............. Program Specialist......................... Career............ 13
Denver Regional Office.............. EDR Colorado/Kansas........................ Career............ 13
Denver Regional Office.............. EDR Iowa/Nebraska.......................... Career............ 13
Denver Regional Office.............. EDR Montana/Utah........................... Career............ 13
Denver Regional Office.............. West Team Leader........................... Career............ 14
Denver Regional Office.............. Program Specialist......................... Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Regional Counsel........................... Career............ 15
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Environmental Officer...................... Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ General Attorney........................... Career............ 14
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Administrative Officer..................... Career............ 12
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Adm Support Assistant...................... Career............ 5
Philadelphia Regional Office........ EDR New York/VT............................ Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Chief, Planning Technical Asst............. Career............ 14
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Community Planner.......................... Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Community Planner.......................... Career............ 12
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Community Planner.......................... Career............ 12
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Chief, Pubic Works......................... Career............ 14
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Sr. Program Specialist..................... Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Public Works Program Spec.................. Career............ 12
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Econ Dev Prog Spec......................... Career............ 12
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Program Specialist......................... Career............ 9
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Chief, Economic Adjustment................. Career............ 14
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Sr.Program Specialist (Financial Analyst).. Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Program Specialist......................... Career............ 13
Philadelphia Regional Office........ Program Specialist......................... Career............ 12
Seattle Regional Office............. Regional Director.......................... Career............ ( \2\ )
Seattle Regional Office............. Regional Counsel........................... Career............ 15
Seattle Regional Office............. EEO/Civil Rights........................... Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. Administrative Officer..................... Career............ 12
Seattle Regional Office............. Computer Specialist........................ Career............ 11
Seattle Regional Office............. EDR Alaska................................. Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. Economic Development Specialist............ Career............ 11
Seattle Regional Office............. Chief, Economic Adjustment................. Career............ 14
Seattle Regional Office............. Economic Adjustment Specialist............. Career............ 12
Seattle Regional Office............. EDR/Oregon, Northern Cal................... Career............ 14
Seattle Regional Office............. EDR Pacific Islands........................ Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. EDR/Idaho and Nevada....................... Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. EDR/Central, Bay, CA....................... Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. EDR/Southern California.................... Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. EDR/Arizona................................ Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. Supv Community Planner..................... Career............ 14
Seattle Regional Office............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. Civil Engineer............................. Career............ 13
Seattle Regional Office............. Public Works Specialist.................... Career............ 12
Seattle Regional Office............. Public Works Specialist.................... Career............ 12
Seattle Regional Office............. Public Works Specialist.................... Career............ 12
----------
Total......................... ........................................... .................. 161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EX.
\2\ SES.
ATTACHMENT 5.--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION STAFFING CHART AS OF 3/20/2007--CONTRACTORS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Positions Funded by Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Management Services....... Accounting Technician............. S&E........................ 2
Office of Management Services....... Human Resources \1\............... S&E........................ 2
Office of Information Technology.... Information Technology............ S&E........................ 7
----------
Total contractors funded by .................................. ........................... 11
S&E funds.
==========
Contractors Funded by Other Sources
of Funds:
Seattle Regional Office......... Community Planner................. DOD Reimb Funds............ 1
Seattle Regional Office......... Administrative Assistant.......... DOD Reimb Funds............ 1
Seattle Regional Office......... Civil Engineer.................... DOD Reimb Funds............ 1
Seattle Regional Office......... Program Specialist................ DOD Reimb Funds............ 1
Seattle Regional Office......... Environ Protection Specialist..... DOD Reimb Funds............ 1
----------
Total Other Fund Sources...... .................................. ........................... 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HR services previously provided under a cross-servicing agreement with ITA.
esa headquarters staffing and funding levels
Question. Please provide a staffing and funding breakout for ESA
Headquarters for fiscal year 2005, fiscal year 2006, fiscal year 2007
CR.
Answer. All ESA headquarters' appropriated staffing and funding are
identified in the Economics and Statistical Analysis budget under the
``Policy Support'' heading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year 2007
Actual Actual Enacted
ESA Headquarters -----------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Amount Personnel Amount Personnel Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positions/Budget Authority.................... 34 $6,316 23 $3,975 23 $3,975
FTE/Obligations............................... 39 6,398 18 3,480 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ TBD.
dynamics of economic well-being
Question. Will there be a gap in continuity between the start of
the Dynamics of Economic Well-Being and the end of the SIPP? If so, how
long?
Answer. The Budget provides $15.9 million (an increase of $6.7
million over the 2007 Budget) to continue the development of the new
Dynamics of Economic Well-being System (DEWS). However, to ensure
Census can focus its efforts and be successful at fielding the new
survey in 2009, the Budget does not include funding to continue SIPP
data collection in 2008. Therefore there will be a short ``data gap''
between ending the SIPP and beginning of DEWS.
Data collection will end for SIPP in September 2007. We will have
full data through May, partial data through August, and no data from
September through December 2007. The first DEWS data collection will
provide data for calendar year 2008. It should be noted that there have
been gaps in the SIPP series before. For example, to enable the Census
Bureau to initiate a new panel in February 2001 and process data more
recently collected, data collected from February to September 2000 were
never released and data from October 2000 to January 2001 were never
collected. Based on those experiences and consultations with some of
our Federal agency partners, we believe that a similar data gap between
SIPP and DEWS should not hamper program evaluation or modeling.
improved measurement of services
Question. Please provide the complete funding requirements for the
``Improved Measurement of Services'' including any out-year
requirements.
Answer. The Improved Measurement of Services initiative request for
fiscal year 2008 is $8,118,000. We expect that a similar amount will be
needed in the out-years, with adjustments for inflationary cost
increases and other technical adjustments to base, providing for the
continued quarterly and annual collection and dissemination of service
industry data.
ita export fee increase
Question. The budget request proposes to double a fee that the
Subcommittee has rejected the last two years. Will the fee increase be
a disincentive for exports at the very time we are trying to encourage
them?
Please provide a schedule of current fees vs. those proposed under
the request.
Answer. In 2006, ITA was involved with over 12,000 export success
stories. Overall, exports from the United States are up over 2005. In
fiscal year 2006, ITA assumed that it would collect $8 million in fees.
ITA actually collected $7.9 million. We believe these fees could be
managed better to free-up funding for ITA activities that provide the
greatest benefit to the nation as a whole. ITA believes its services
are important for potential exporters and will continue to contribute
to the export boom.
ITA is working toward developing a fee setting strategy that will
recover a slightly larger share of costs from companies that can afford
it, while still encouraging SMEs to participate in the export market.
The proposed fees will cover approximately 5 percent of the costs of
the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (an increase from 3 percent in
fiscal year 2007), and only about 3 percent of ITA's overall costs. The
fees are targeted at services that provide benefits for specific firms,
such as International Partner Searches, and Gold Key services. These
services are most similar to those provided by private consulting
firms.
In addition, ITA is developing novel partnerships with companies
such as FED-Ex and E-BAY, to name a couple, to expand the number of
SMEs that export and those that export to more the one country. For
example, FedEx is helping ITA to identify and inform U.S. exporters to
Mexico about new business opportunities in Central America, which have
come about as a result of recent Free Trade Agreements that the United
States has signed with these countries. These private sector partners
join ITA's traditional interagency partners, such as SBA, the Export-
Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and state and
local governments in an effort to educate, inform and assist companies.
These partnerships help achieve the government's and the private
partners' goals of expanding foreign sales.
Below is a schedule of current fees. There are no proposed fees at
this time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Products
Business Facilitation Service............. Variable depending on
company requirements
BuyUSA.gov Business Service Provider...... International $150-$500
Domestic $250
Free for U.S. Companies
Commercial News USA....................... Revenue comes from
advertising
Customized Market Research................ Variable depending on
company requirements
Featured US Exporters (FUSE).............. $25-50
Gold Key--1st day......................... $685-$770 \1\
Gold Key--each additional day............. $320-$385 \1\
International Company Profile (ICP)....... $520-$810 \1\
International Partner Search (IPS)........ $500-$790 \1\
Platinum Key Service...................... Variable depending on
company requirements
Events
Catalog Event/PLC......................... $450 and $650
Certified Trade Mission................... Variable depending on
company requirements
International Buyer Program............... $8,000
Seminar-Webinar........................... Variable
Trade Fair................................ Variable depending on trade
fair expenses and company
requirements
Trade Mission............................. Variable depending on
company requirements
Trade Promotion Event..................... Variable depending on
company requirements
Single Company Promotion.................. Variable depending on
company requirements
Certified Trade Fairs..................... $1,750
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The range of user fees charged for certain services reflects
variations in the cost of doing business in different markets.
ita chinese subsidy programs
Question. Please provide a funding summary of efforts to identify
and analyze Chinese subsidy programs.
Answer. While ITA records maintain cost information for overall
China enforcement efforts, it does not record separately its activities
with respect to China subsidies for financial purposes. We can
reasonably estimate that, between efforts in Washington, DC, and ITA's
foreign offices in Asia, particularly Beijing, ITA devoted well over
$1,000,000 to research, monitoring, consultation and advocacy regarding
China subsidy issues during fiscal year 2006. During fiscal year 2007,
we estimate that this amount could reach somewhere in the range of
$1,500,000.
ita assistant secretary status
Question. What is the status of the A/S for Manufacturing vacancy?
Answer. We are working closely with Personnel at the White House on
this appointment and are making good progress. We are committed to
filling this position as quickly as possible.
funding for noaa education programs
Question. Secretary Gutierrez, a few weeks ago you invited me to
attend an event at a local Maryland high school to visit with students
participating in the FIRST Robotics competition. From the interest you
have shown in this program I know that you are keenly aware of the fact
that we need to engage our young people I math and science programs.
What is the rationale for cutting the NOAA education programs by 50
percent?
Does the Department of Commerce believe in the NOAA education
mission?
Answer. NOAA's fiscal year 2008 budget maintains NOAA's education
spending at the fiscal year 2007 President's request level. The
Department of Commerce strongly believes in NOAA's educational mission
and we believe that NOAA can make considerable progress toward its goal
of developing an ocean literate population at the requested funding
level. In order to produce a society well versed in ocean-related
issues, it is vital that NOAA establishes a strong foundation of
knowledgeable students who will later move into the general population.
The programs included in the fiscal year 2008 budget (see Table 1) all
contribute to this goal.
TABLE 1.--EDUCATION PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2008
BUDGET REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
2008
Program President's
Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educational Partnership Program......................... $14,261,000
Hollings Scholarship.................................... 3,700,000
JASON................................................... 1,000,000
Nancy Foster Scholarship................................ 400,000
---------------
Total............................................. 19,361,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of each of these successful NOAA programs are highlighted
below:
The JASON Project uses multimedia tools and cutting-edge technology
to engage middle-school students in scientific research and expeditions
led by leading scientists. Dr. Bob Ballard has transmitted his
discoveries to millions of students in classrooms around the country,
via satellite and internet broadcasts. The JASON Project also provides
on-site and on-line teacher professional development supported by the
National Science Teachers Association and the U.S. Department of
Education's Star Schools Program.
NOAA's Educational Partnership Program began in 2001 and provides
financial assistance, on a competitive basis, to Minority Serving
Institutions (MSIs) to increase programs and opportunities for students
to be trained and graduate in sciences that directly support NOAA's
mission. The program consists of four core components: Cooperative
Science Centers, Environmental Entrepreneurship Program, Graduate
Sciences Program and the Undergraduate Scholarship Program.
--Five Cooperative Science Centers have been designated at MSIs with
graduate degree programs in NOAA-related sciences. To date,
NOAA has provided formal training and research opportunities
for 2,050 students at these centers. External teams of
scientists have reviewed the centers to determine the
effectiveness of student recruitment, training and graduation.
Program statistics have consistently exceeded performance
measures with over 383 students graduating with bachelors and
advanced degrees in NOAA-related sciences. Of those students,
33 have received Ph.D.'s and 105 students have been awarded
Masters Degrees. Another 94 Ph.D. candidates and 126 Masters
candidates are expected to receive advanced degrees within the
next three to five years.
--The Environmental Entrepreneurship Program provides financial
assistance to increase the number of students at MSIs who are
proficient in both environmental studies and business
enterprises. The Program facilitates linkages between MSIs,
NOAA and the private sector.
--The Undergraduate Scholarship Program has trained 84 students
majoring in NOAA-related sciences at MSIs. Of these, 69
students have completed the program and 15 are finishing their
second year of training. Twenty-eight of the students that have
completed the program have been accepted into graduate
programs.
--The Graduate Sciences Program offers training and work experience
to exceptional female and minority students pursuing advanced
degrees in the environmental sciences. After completing the
program, participants commit to employment at NOAA based upon
the length of their training. To date, the Graduate Sciences
program has hired 32 graduates as NOAA scientists.
The Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program, named in honor of the
late distinguished NOAA scientist and Assistant Administrator,
recognizes outstanding scholarship and encourages independent graduate
level research--particularly by female and minority students--in
oceanography, marine biology and maritime archaeology. Congress
authorized the Program, as described in the National Marine Sanctuaries
Amendments Act of 2000, soon after Dr. Foster's death in June 2000, as
a means of honoring her life's work and contribution to the Nation. To
date, 22 students have received scholarships, 18 of whom are women.
The Ernest F. Hollings Scholars Program recruits and prepares
students for public service careers with NOAA and other natural
resource and science agencies as well as for careers as teachers and
educators in oceanic and atmospheric science. Last year, the first
Hollings Scholars successfully participated in summer internships with
NOAA labs and facilities. The Hollings Scholarship Program currently
funds more than 100 students in ocean and atmospheric sciences, math,
computer science, social science and education.
As indicated above, the Department supports education programs at
NOAA and is requesting over $19 million in fiscal year 2008 for
education programs and activities.
united states pto patent backlog
Question. What is the current backlog of patents?
Answer. The backlog (cases that have not been examined) of patent
applications at the beginning of fiscal year 2007 was 701,000. As noted
in the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, the rate at which patent applications
are being filed has increased beyond the rate at which the USPTO is
presently able to examine them. It is possible that this backlog could
approach 1.4 million by 2012.
We are currently employing the following strategies to address
backlogs:
--Enhance recruitment to hire 1,200 new patent examiners a year for
an extended period of time, including examiners with degrees
and/or experience in areas of emerging technologies.
--Expand telework and explore establishing regional USPTO office.
--Competitively source PCT Chapter 1 applications, freeing examiners
to focus on national cases.
--Explore examination reform through the rule making process to
create better-focused examination and enhance information
exchange between applicant and examiner.
long-term metric/goal for patent pendency
Question. What is the agency's long-term metric/goal for patent
pendency?
Answer. Our long-term, strategic goal for patent pendency \1\ is 28
months to final disposition, by 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Patent pendency is the amount of time a patent application is
waiting (in queue) before a patent is issued or the application is
abandoned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrics include reduction of the initial waiting time for patent
applications in our most backlogged Technology Centers and successful
implementation of various initiatives that ensure goal achievement by
2012.
The USPTO is both implementing initiatives and exploring strategies
that will reduce the backlog of unexamined patent applications and
improve the timeliness of a patent examination.
An important set of options--important because they would have a
significant, long-lasting positive effect on timeliness of patent
examination--might require legislation. Therefore, we are grateful to
the Subcommittee for its interest in the topic of patent pendency, as
we believe faster processing of patent applications is crucial to
America's Competitiveness.
retention rate
Question. What is the current staff retention rate?
Answer. The USPTO typically reports an attrition rate rather than a
retention rate. In 2006 the USPTO's examining staff had an attrition
rate of 10.6 percent. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported a total government separation rate of 16.9
percent for 2006.
increase examiner retention
Question. Beyond recruitment and retention bonuses, how is PTO
working to increase examiner retention?
Answer. In addition to providing eligible examiners a market-driven
recruitment bonus for up to four years with a condition of employment
agreement, the USPTO has identified a number of initiatives that would
improve retention:
--The Office is forming teams of hiring coordinators with specialized
technology-specific and human resources and recruiting skills
to attract candidates for hard to fill examining positions,
particularly those most likely to stay at the USPTO.
--Another way of attracting candidates who most likely would remain
at the USPTO is to use personal interaction at college and
regional job fairs to educate candidates about the exact nature
of the job.
--The on-going Patent Hoteling Program (PHP), which was launched in
2006 with 500 examiners, will be expanded by 500 examiners a
year through fiscal year 2010.
--PH is a voluntary program whereby participants can remotely
access USPTO automated system, on-line resources, and other
information from an alternative worksite. They also can
remotely reserve office space one day per week in a ``hotel
office suite'' located at USPTO headquarters to conduct in-
person business activities.
--On a more long-term basis, we hope to create, with Congressional
support and legislative authority, a workplace that can be
anywhere. In this regard, three possibilities are being
investigated by Patents: (1) expanding the successful Patents
Hoteling Program (PHP) in such a way as to create a more
nationwide workforce; (2) creating remote or regional offices,
or brick and mortar presences, in different locations across
the country selected upon a variety of factors such as where
pockets of technology may be concentrated or there is increased
access to a suitable workforce for hire; and (3) a storefront
approach which in a sense is a hybrid of the possibilities (1)
and (2). The storefront approach would potentially provide a
small-scale brick and mortar presence, or node, which could
then act as a support center for employees participating in an
expanded hoteling program.
--The USPTO plans a multi-pronged approach to provide enhanced
training programs for patent employees--both new employees and
mid-career and senior examiners.
--The Office also plans to develop alternatives to the current
performance and bonus systems, for example, the Patent Flat
Goal pilot program, which is designed to improve flexibility as
to when and where examiners perform their work.
--Patent examiners received a 7 percent special pay rate increase in
November 2006.
--In 2006, USPTO management submitted proposals to patent union
representatives for a new collective bargaining agreement that
would replace a previous agreement negotiated in 1986.
Proposals include enhanced patent examining monetary awards and
production activities, as well as a stand-alone quality award.
timeline for achieving strategic plan goals and objectives
Question. In December, PTO submitted its latest 5-year strategic
plan to OMB. The plan lists four goals: Optimizing Patent Quality and
Timeliness; Optimizing Trademark Quality and Timeliness; Improving
Intellectual Property Protection; and Achieve Organizational
Excellence.
What is your timeline for achieving the goals and objectives of the
plan?
Answer. The 2007-2012 Strategic Plan proposes consideration of
substantial changes for patents, trademarks, intellectual policy and
management that will better position the USPTO and its users for future
growth and complexity. The Plan also documents our belief that
partnership with stakeholders is crucial to defining, in a
collaborative manner, solutions that will benefit the entire IP system.
The Strategic Plan specifically identifies and describes more than
60 initiatives for achieving the goals and objectives in the Strategic
Plan. Some of these initiatives already are under way or have specific
timeframes, while others commit us to continue researching and
exploring options to solve specific problems.
--For example, one alternative that is under way is the Patent Flat
Goal pilot program. This pilot is designed to improve
flexibility as to when and where examiners perform their work.
--Another example is the initiative to competitively source Patent
Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Chapter I applications. As an
International Searching Authority under the PCT, the USPTO is
obligated to perform this search function. By competitively
sourcing this function, the USPTO will redirect patent examiner
resources back to the examination of U.S. applications. Two
contracts were awarded last fiscal year to initiate this
program. In addition, the USPTO entered into agreements with IP
Australia to perform search and examination work on PCT
applications. Initially, the USPTO expects to competitively
source up to 15,000 Chapter I applications.
--In addition, we have identified a broad objective to explore the
development of alternative approaches to patent examination in
collaboration with stakeholders.
--The USPTO is planning a pilot program for peer review of patent
applications. Up to 250 applicants whose applications are in
the computer architecture, software and information security
technologies will be able to voluntarily place their
applications on a non-USPTO web site for public review by a
peer group of patent users, attorneys and academics. This peer
group will determine and submit to the USPTO what they consider
the best available and relevant prior art. The pilot will test
whether this peer review can effectively identify prior art
that might not otherwise be found by our examiners during the
typical examination process. We will also make an evaluation as
to whether this process results in measurable examination
timesaving and quality improvement.
--We also are developing a plan to reach out to the entire patent
community to ensure their ideas are adequately represented and
considered. The Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) would
assist in this process by gathering information and making
recommendations to improve the patent system to the USPTO. A
proposed process has been developed for gathering input and
proposals for improving the patent examination system by
bringing together the diverse external patent community to
identify patent examination products or services that may
result in the more efficient use of examination resources. The
process would strive to identify a wide range of ideas from
those needing statutory changes to those that can be
implemented immediately under our existing authorities.
--The USPTO is developing and reviewing a variety of innovative
patent processing initiatives including a new offering for the
public called ``Accelerated Examination.'' Under this program,
which began August 26, 2006, for those applicants who need or
want quick turn around, the USPTO offers a complete examination
within 12 months. In exchange for this quick turn around,
applicants must file a complete application, agree to
interviews and accelerated response periods, must file and
prosecute their application electronically and must provide
more information about the application to the USPTO in the form
of an examination support document. The first application to be
completed under this program was filed on September 29, 2006
and issued on March 13, 2007 (less than 6 months from date of
filing).
--We believe that to effectively address and control pendency and
reduce backlog, the USPTO needs to receive more and better
focused information from applicants themselves and from the
public at large. The USPTO has proposed and will propose
regulations and administrative changes governing submission of
patent applications that will enable our examiners to make more
efficient and informed determinations.
--First, we have proposed limiting the number of continuing
applications and continued examination requests to provide an
incentive for applicants to focus their initial patent
applications on their inventive contributions.
--Second, we have proposed to limit the number of claims that are
initially examined in order to provide an incentive to focus
the examination process.
--The first and second proposals have optional procedures which
continue to provide an applicant flexibility where the
applicant may need additional continuing applications or
initially examined claims upon a showing of that need or by
shouldering additional responsibilities. In parallel we have
proposed revisions to our information disclosure requirements
to focus our limited examination recourses on prior art that is
most relevant to the examination process. Additionally we are
considering a new practice change to require applicants to
conduct a pre-examination search and provide an explanation as
to why they believe that they are entitled to a patent in view
of the information discovered during the pre-examination
search.
--Our hope is to achieve examination reform that creates better-
focused examination and enhances information exchange between
applicant and examiner. We look forward to working with the
public and Congress to develop an enhanced examination system
that effectively and fairly balances the needs of the Office
and the interests of the patent applicants, interested third
parties and the general public.
--While the USPTO currently has a procedure for submission of prior
art after publication, which allows submission by third parties
within two months of publication, the procedure does not allow
explanations or other information about the patents or
publications absent express written consent of the applicant.
We encourage consideration of a change to the statute governing
this procedure to allow filing of relevant information by third
parties after pre-grant publication. Such a change would allow
those interested parties to explain why the prior art would
have a negative impact on the patentability of the claims. This
process, which would provide the examiner with information he
or she might not otherwise obtain, should result in a more
efficient examination process and a higher quality, more
reliable patent. Putting the best and most complete information
before our examiners, as early in the examination process as
possible, is beneficial to the legitimate interests of all
interested parties and stakeholders.
--We look forward to working with Congress to develop a submission
procedure that effectively and fairly balances the interests of
the patent applicant, interested third parties and the general
public.
--We are also looking to provide assistance to the open source
community in their development of an open source database to
provide examiners with potential prior art.
--Trademarks expects to achieve 3-month first action pendency by 2008
and maintain it thereafter. Trademarks also expects to reduce
disposal pendency to 16 months by 2009 and maintain it. Our
challenge will be to maintain performance goals given the
uncertainties of filings and funding. The Strategic Plan
addresses improvements in the criteria used to define quality
as well as expanding quality assessments throughout the office.
In conclusion, we consider the Strategic Plan to be a work in
progress, and we will refine and update it regularly to adjust to
changing conditions and to incorporate the best thinking of the
intellectual property community and beyond. Our budget and performance
plan that is submitted to the Congress each year will document key
measurements and yearly milestones to justify full funding for the
Office in achieving our strategic goals.
patent examination quality
Question. How does the PTO measure patent examination quality?
Answer. Quality begins with the fundamentals--a high-performing
workforce that is properly trained and given the tools and information
technology systems needed to accomplish the job. Furthermore, the USPTO
monitors quality quite precisely by measuring:
--In-process compliance with published statutory, regulatory, and
practice standards;
--End-of-process compliance with these same standards.
These parameters are measured by performing a review of
statistically significant random samplings of examiners' work products.
Since we put additional quality initiatives in place in 2003, our
compliance rates have increased.
In fiscal year 2006, we achieved a 96.5 percent patent allowance
compliance \2\ rate the highest in 25 years, while receiving a
historically high number of patent applications (419,760).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Compliance rate is the percentage of applications allowed by
patent examiners with no errors after being reviewed by the Office of
Patent Quality Assurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
work with user community to evaluate quality
Question. Is the PTO working with the user community to evaluate
whether the right measures are being used to evaluate quality?
Answer. As part of the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, we will continue
to work with all interested parties to find new ways to improve and
measure quality even more effectively.
The USPTO plans to keep developing appropriate measures of patent
quality and related performance targets given the current patent
examination system. We will engage the patent community about
developing objective review criteria that can be applied in all review
processes. By doing this, we will create more consistent and credible
measurements of quality.
technology administration staffing and unobligated balances
Question. Please provide the current on-board staffing levels for
TA.
Answer. As of March 14, 2007, the on-board staffing levels for TA
are 7 consisting of 6 full-time permanent employees and 1 excepted
service employee.
Question. Please provide the fiscal year 2006 end-of-year
unobligated balance for TA.
Answer. The fiscal year 2006 end-of-year unobligated balance for TA
was $443,000.
mep funding levels
Question. Please provide the analysis behind the $46.3 million
funding level request for the MEP?
Answer. We believe that the proposed budget would achieve these
specific Federal objectives:
--Ensure that MEP continues to develop and provide all the centers
up-to-date skills and techniques;
--Ensure standards of quality are met and maintained at every center
receiving Federal funding; and
--Ensure that centers focus on offering services to the small
manufacturers in their areas, rather than large firms.
In a tight budget environment, we need to ensure that we are
funding the highest priority programs. The President's request for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will ensure that
funding goes to basic research--especially in the areas of physical
sciences, engineering, computing, and nanotechnology--that is vital to
the Nation's innovation enterprise and manufacturing. NIST meets these
priorities by focusing on high impact research and investing in the
capacity of NIST's user facilities and labs. This emphasis is validated
by the high rate of return to the Nation that the NIST labs already
have demonstrated. Nineteen retrospective studies of economic impact
show that, on average, NIST labs generated a benefit-to-cost ratio of
44:1 to the U.S. economy. The high rate of return results from the fact
that new measurements or standards benefit entire industries or sectors
of the economy--as opposed to individual companies. The MEP program is
just one method by which NIST supports small manufacturers. NIST
laboratory activities are geared to enhancing the Nation's
manufacturing base, provide more of a true public good, and are a
better use of scarce Federal funding.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request would encourage MEP Centers to
be more efficient by reducing their overhead costs, including marketing
costs. Given the benefits reported by MEP clients, centers could also
ask MEP clients to cover more of the cost of the services through
increased fees.
Question. How would NIST implement the program at $46.3 million?
Answer. The MEP Director will work with the centers to develop
options that consider each center's customer base, constraints, and
opportunities. Actions taken by any center or group of centers will be
assessed against their ability to maintain support to the small
manufacturers. MEP will work with the centers to examine alternatives
and optimize the best plan for operating at the $46.3 million level
that ensures the maximum benefit to small manufacturers.
ntia's appropriation language
Question. Please provide a brief summary of the status of each of
the mandatory spending programs funded through the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Fund.
Answer. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law 109-171,
(Act) provides borrowing authority for four programs that are the
current focus of the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program (Sec. 3005 of the Act)
Congress directed NTIA to implement and administer a program
through which eligible U.S. households may obtain up to two coupons of
$40 each to be applied towards the purchase of digital-to-analog
television converters. NTIA issued its Final Rule to implement the
Coupon Program on March 9, 2007. The rule, which is available on NTIA's
website at www.ntia.doc.gov, describes how consumers may obtain and use
coupons, outlines retailer participation, and provides detailed
specifications for manufacturers who wish to produce converters to be
eligible for purchase with coupons.
NTIA held a public meeting on March 19 to review the Final Rule in
detail and to answer any questions. The meeting was the first of
several periodic meetings NTIA will hold to communicate with the public
and leverage a wide range of private sector, nonprofit, and
governmental partners in disseminating information about the Coupon
Program and the digital transition.
NTIA intends to enter into a contract for services to administer
the Coupon Program through a separate program acquisition. On July 31,
2006, NTIA issued a Request for Information to initiate market research
for the contract. Interested vendors attended an Industry Day on August
11, 2006, and submitted information to NTIA on September 15, 2006. NTIA
released the Request for Proposals (``RFP'') on March 13, 2007. NTIA
held a Bidder's Conference on March 26, 2007. Offerors will respond to
this RFP by April 30, 2007. The procurement schedule anticipates that a
contract will be awarded by August/September 2007 and the period of
performance will start some months later.
The voluntary participation of consumer electronics retailers and
manufacturers is crucial to the success of the Coupon Program. Business
considerations, however, will ultimately guide the retailers and
manufacturers in deciding whether they will produce and market
converter boxes through the Coupon Program. NTIA, through its rules and
administration of the program, is making every effort to encourage
participation and support from these industries.
NTIA has taken suggestions from manufacturers and broadcasters to
establish technical specifications for converters that will ensure the
availability of low-cost, reliable converters based on today's state of
the art technology. NTIA set minimum specifications and features for
converters that are ``required'' but also identified features and
specifications that are ``permitted.'' Pursuant to the statute, NTIA's
Final Rule also provides examples of ``disqualifying'' features such as
built-in DVD capability.
NTIA has addressed retailers' concerns about a range of topics such
as the timing of payments to reimburse them for coupon redemption,
requirements for stocking and managing converter inventory, training
requirements, and promotion and marketing of converters. NTIA's
retailer certification program will minimize incidents of waste, fraud
and abuse. Retailers will be part of the Federal Government's Central
Contractor Registry (www.ccr.gov) and will agree to have electronic
systems in place to track coupon redemption activity. NTIA will provide
training materials for retailers and maintain lists of certified
retailers.
NTIA's consumer education efforts will succeed only with the help
of the broadcasters, consumer electronics manufacturers and retailers,
and several key consumer and public outreach organizations. NTIA is a
key participant in the Digital Television Transition Coalition
(www.dtvtransition.org) which was recently launched to ensure that no
consumer is left without broadcast television due to a lack of
information about the transition. NTIA will work with intermediary
groups representing vulnerable populations--rural residents,
economically disadvantaged, minorities and seniors--to get the word out
through broadcast stations, newspapers, advertisements, the Internet
and other outlets that serve these communities. NTIA will also work
with other agencies, such as Food Stamps, SSI, and Veterans Affairs--as
well as state, county and local associations--to reach consumers
directly through mail stuffers alerting households to the Coupon
Program.
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program (Sec. 3006 of
the Act)
The Act establishes a $1 billion grant program to assist public
safety agencies in the acquisition of, deployment of, or training for
the use of interoperable communications systems that utilize, or enable
interoperability with communications systems that can utilize,
reallocated pubic safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for radio
communications. NTIA does not view this language to limit the grant
funds only to 700 MHz systems investments. Rather, NTIA is committed to
exploring the use of all available technologies to advance overall
public safety interoperability, as long as those technologies will
enable first responders to interoperate with the 700 MHz bands in the
future. The Call Home Act of 2006 directs NTIA, in consultation with
DHS, to award the grants no later than September 30, 2007.
On February 16, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Office of Grants and Training and NTIA signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) through which DHS will provide NTIA with grants
administrative services to assist in the administration of the Public
Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC) Grant Program. The
program schedule has been developed to meet the statutory requirements
and deadlines as well as to create an effective PSIC Grant Program.
The Program will make grants to eligible public safety agencies
through the State Administrative Agencies in the 56 States and
Territories. In mid-July 2007, PSIC grant awards will be made and
jointly announced by NTIA and DHS, and the grant guidance, application
kits, and eligibility requirements will be released. PSIC funds will be
allocated using a modified version of the DHS risk methodology.
Up to five percent of the total grant for each State and Territory
will be disbursed to ensure that their Statewide Interoperable
Communications Plans (Statewide Plans) include consideration of PSIC
requirements. No later than November 2007, States and Territories will
submit their final Statewide Plans and an investment justification
outlining how the PSIC funds will be used to meet the PSIC requirements
consistent with their Statewide Plans. Once the Statewide Plans,
applications and investment justifications are reviewed and approved,
the PSIC funds will be disbursed to States and Territories to pass
through to eligible public safety agencies. Projects must be completed
by September 30, 2010.
The PSIC Grant Program will be designed to complement funds that
have been awarded through other grant programs--such as the Homeland
Security Grant Program and the Infrastructure Protection Program--that
include interoperable communications funds. The program guidance and
application process will emphasize leveraging grants, contracts or
state/local budgets to build and sustain intrastate and interstate
regional capabilities and identified needs.
New York City 911 Digital Transition (Sec. 3007of the Act)
The Act directs NTIA to reimburse the Metropolitan Television
Alliance (MTVA) up to $30 million for costs associated with the digital
television transition. MTVA, a consortium of New York City area
television stations, formed when the television stations' digital and
analog transmission facilities were destroyed in the collapse of the
North Tower of the World Trade Center. This funding will assist MTVA in
the design and deployment of a temporary digital television broadcast
system to ensure that, until a permanent facility atop the Freedom
Tower is constructed, the stations can provide digital television
service to the New York City area.
NTIA has been working with MTVA since June 2006 in the preparation
of an application for this funding and to ensure that MTVA will be able
to comply with federal funding requirements. The application process
has been completed and the grant was announced on March 21 2007. NTIA
is awarding $7,855,000 for fiscal year 2007 to MTVA for the first phase
of the project that will design and test the technology for a
distributed transmission system at three of five sites in the New York
City metropolitan area. Based on the results of these test sites, MTVA
anticipates requesting $21,645,000 for reimbursement in fiscal year
2008 to complete the full 20-site system in the New York City
metropolitan area. This will ensure operation prior to the digital
television transition deadline of February 17, 2009.
Low-Power Television and Translator Digital-to-Analog Conversion (Sec.
3008 of the Act)
The Act establishes a $10 million program to compensate each low-
power television station for the purchase of digital-to-analog
conversion equipment to enable the conversion of an incoming digital
signal from its corresponding full-power television station to analog
format for transmission on the low-power station's analog channel.
Funds are to be made available to these organizations in fiscal year
2008. Approximately 10,000 facilities are eligible for this support.
NTIA plans to work closely with the low-power television and
translator communities to ensure that this $10 million program
effectively assists these communities as the February 2009 deadline
approaches. NTIA is currently reviewing technical issues necessary to
draft program guidance and application guidelines, which it expects to
issue later this year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
ita western hemisphere travel initiative
Question. I have serious reservations with the manner in which the
Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and State (State) have pushed
forward with implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI) before the necessary technology installation, infrastructure
upgrades, and training takes place at our border stations. If these
critical features of the deployment are not in place, I am afraid we
will see severe delays at our border and law-abiding citizens from the
United States, Canada, and Mexico will have great difficulty moving
between our countries. Most importantly, a hasty implementation without
assurances that the technology to be used is truly effective will
result in a less secure border.
Since Canada is such an important trading partner and friendly
neighbor to the United States, it clearly is in the best interest of
both of our countries to keep those relations as positive and
productive as possible. To that end, we all know that there is a
dynamic relationship between commerce and security, and we constantly
need to balance the two.
Has your agency conducted or been asked to conduct any economic
impact analysis for how WHTI is going to affect communities along our
Northern Border?
If not, could you please provide for the Subcommittee your best
estimate as to the economic impact that the WHTI would have on (a) the
states along the Northern Border, and (b) the U.S. economy?
Answer. While Commerce has not conducted, nor has it been asked to
conduct, an analysis of WHTI's regional or national economic impact,
the following data is provided for consideration.
Currently, Canadian and Mexican travel to the USA has a dramatic
impact on the country. In 2006, Canada became the second largest market
for U.S. travel exports ($13.5 billion). Canada is still the largest
generator of arrivals to the United States, with 16 million visitors
staying one night or longer.
Mexico is the fourth largest travel export market for the United
States ($9.2 billion), and the second largest visitor market for the
USA, setting records for arrivals and travel exports in 2004-2006.
Since 2000, Canada and Mexico have been the only countries to post
increases in arrivals among the top six arrival markets for the
country.
Commerce is working with the Departments of Homeland Security and
State and with the industry to try to minimize any negative impact WHTI
may have in travel and tourism. For example, discussions have taken
place on developing a pass card between the USA and Canada; the
passport requirement was changed to exempt children under 16; and a
communication effort was implemented by industry and DHS to inform
travelers of the WHTI changes.
As the U.S. Government moves into the second wave of implementation
(land border and cruise), Commerce will work closely with the
Department of Homeland Security to ensure clear communications with
potential travelers. Travel flows between the countries will continue
to be reported on a monthly basis by Commerce's Office of Travel and
Tourism Industries.
western hemisphere travel initiative
Question. I was troubled to learn that the DHS may have prematurely
endorsed one PASS Card technology over another without first securing
the required National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
certification of the card architecture and then notifying Congress. The
law clearly states that the NIST must certify, prior to implementation,
``that the Departments of Homeland Security and State have selected a
card architecture that meets or exceeds International Organization for
Standardization security standards and meets or exceeds best available
practices for protection of personal identification documents.'' By
unilaterally moving forward with vicinity-read technology, the DHS
would be choosing an insecure technology that has not been proven
effective at ensuring privacy protection, and it would be necessitating
the installation of new technological infrastructure at every U.S. land
and sea port of entry.
Has NIST begun its analysis into the WHTI-related technology
issues, as called for in the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill?
Answer. After passage of the statute (Public Law 109-295), NIST
immediately began to work with the Departments of State and Homeland
Security in order to identify appropriate standards and best available
practices that relate to the security aspects of the card architecture,
for the technology chosen jointly by State and DHS. NIST has engaged in
extensive discussions with the technical staff of those departments,
and has provided a set of requirements for certifying the security of
the PASS Card architecture.
Question. If so, when do you estimate the NIST will complete its
analysis?
Answer. NIST has advised State and DHS that certification would be
done within four weeks of receiving the draft Request for Proposal
(RFP) from State, and prior to the release of the final RFP. This is to
ensure that the RFP accurately reflects the set of requirements
identified by NIST so that the selected card architecture meets or
exceeds International Organization for Standardization (ISO) security
standards and meets or exceeds best available practices for protection
of personal identification documents. This commitment presumes that
State and DHS continue to work with NIST in their drafting of the RFP.
That has been the case to date.
Question. Once complete, how does your agency plan to release and
certify the results?
Answer. Certification by NIST would be by a letter from the NIST
Director to the appropriate individual(s) at State and/or DHS noting
that the test protocols in the RFP verify that the card architecture
meets or exceeds ISO security standards and meets or exceeds best
available practices for protection of personal identification documents
for the chosen technology.
Question. Do you see a difference between NIST certifying the
procurement of the technology and certifying the feasibility of the
technology? If so, please explain.
Answer. NIST will be neither certifying the procurement of the
technology nor the feasibility of the technology. Our certification
will be focused on the specification of the statute: that NIST certify
that DHS and State ``have selected a card architecture that meets of
exceeds International Organization for Standardization (ISO) security
standards and meets or exceeds best available practices for protection
of personal identification documents.'' We will be conducting this
certification via ensuring that the set of requirements identified by
NIST in compliance with the statute are embodied in the Request for
Proposals that define the compliance requirements for industry.
Question. Have you or employees in your agency been under any
pressure to reach a preordained conclusion or hurried certification in
this matter?
Answer. NIST has not been under any pressure to reach a pre-
ordained conclusion or hurried certification.
mep program
Question. I understand that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) recently announced its intention to re-compete the
MEP system beginning in April 2007, and then quickly drew back that
proposal. I strongly disagree with any re-competition proposal because
of the disruption it would cause to the national MEP infrastructure and
the good work accomplished daily by the Vermont Manufacturing Extension
Center. On top of that, the President's request of $46.3 million is not
an appropriate level of funding for this valuable program dedicated to
serving our nation's smaller manufacturers.
For the past six years, a bipartisan majority of the Congress has
fully supported the MEP program despite the annual ritual of deep cuts
proposed by the President. This support stems from the successful
performance demonstrated by centers nationwide in ensuring the
sustainability of our domestic small manufacturing industry and its
high-quality jobs.
With the fiscal year 2008 congressional budget and appropriations
processes just beginning, I believe it would be inappropriate for the
Bush administration to disrupt, re-compete, or restructure the MEP
program based on its own proposed budget proposal for the coming year.
On top of that, any such actions during fiscal year 2007 would be
inconsistent with Congress' intention for those funds.
In light of the recent announcement by the NIST that it will not
re-compete the program in April, I ask the following questions of
Secretary Gutierrez and Director Jeffrey:
What factors, considerations, or conversations made you change your
mind in the eleven days that passed between your February 15 re-
competition announcement and your February 26 announcement that the re-
competition would cease?
Answer. The proposed re-competition was intended as a contingency
to ensure the strongest network possible regardless of final
appropriations. To conduct such a competition would take approximately
5-6 months, which is why we initially looked towards late spring of
2007 to initiate the process. This would provide us the necessary data
to make informed decisions at the beginning of fiscal year 2008--once
the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget was known. Based upon inputs from
the MEP Center Directors, Congressional Members and Staff, and others
it became clear that the process of the re-competition would be
disruptive to current Center operations. We, therefore, decided not to
hold this re-competition.
Question. This is not the first time you have tried to re-compete
the MEP program, as you attempted to mount a re-competition less than
three years ago.
Now that you have changed course again, can you assure us that you
will not attempt a re-competition for a third time in 2008? If you
cannot make this affirmation, under what circumstances, and with what
policy objectives, can you envision proceeding down the re-competition
path again?
Answer. We cannot make that definitive affirmation. The goal of MEP
is to support the Nation's small manufacturers. The MEP program will
therefore examine all possible alternatives to most effectively achieve
that goal given any enacted budget level.
Question. In your written testimony, you state, ``The reduction of
Federal funds to the local centers may have to be compensated through a
combination of increased fees derived from the benefits accrued by
individual companies and cost-savings in the operations of the
centers.''
Please explain what data or reports you have to support that
increased fees from the benefits accrued by companies and cost savings
in the operation of the centers are possible.
Answer. The annual reported benefits by manufacturing clients of
the MEP Centers conducted through an independent survey demonstrates a
significant level of cost savings and efficiency improvements for the
MEP clients. For example, the latest MEP client survey results
(released January 2007 and reflecting fiscal year 2005 benefits)
demonstrate that MEP helped 16,448 clients create and retain 53,000
jobs; increase and retain sales of nearly $6.3 billion; and generated
cost savings of just over $1.3 billion (both recurring and non-
recurring). These impacts resulting in reduced costs and potentially
increased profits for the client could be used to support increased
fees for future services. With increased revenues streams from client
fees, MEP centers may offset, in whole or in part, the reduction in
Federal funds.
Question. I understand that you may be considering the creation of
regional innovation centers across the country.
Are you considering this idea? If so, how do you envision the
constitution of these centers? What role would the MEP play in this
plan?
Answer. MEP has no plans to develop regional innovation centers.
Question. Has the NIST consulted with its state partners to ensure
that state governments, which provide cost share to these programs, are
comfortable with their state resources being used across state
boundaries? If so, please describe the reaction of these state
partners.
Answer. MEP has no plans to develop regional innovation centers.
MEP routinely consults with its state partners on programs priorities
and alignment with state initiatives.
Question. The MEP system is an effective, economic development
program that has generated results, created and retained jobs, and
leveraged local partnerships. In fiscal year 2005 alone, as a direct
result of MEP services, clients reported more than $6.25 billion in new
and retained sales, $1.304 billion in cost savings, $2.248 billion in
client investment in modernization, 17,453 jobs created, and 35,766
jobs retained. Thus, it appears that MEP returns far exceed the initial
investment.
What is your plan for building on this proven resource to produce
even greater results for American manufacturers and workers?
Answer. MEP will build upon our foundation of process improvements
with clients to develop innovation and growth services that will
position U.S. manufacturers to meet the increasing demands of the
global marketplace. A key focus will be providing manufacturers with
access to the technologies needed for the development of new processes
and innovative products.
We also will focus on supplier development since small
manufacturers are such a crucial part of the supply chain.
Question. It is no secret that one of the biggest challenges facing
small American manufacturers is competition from low-cost overseas
producers. As large Original Equipment Manufacturers seek the best,
fastest, and cheapest suppliers, they are increasingly looking
overseas. Even our major defense contractors are purchasing more from
overseas suppliers, putting our Nation in the position of depending on
parts from other countries to equip our troops.
Have you contemplated using the MEP system to strengthen our
domestic suppliers so that we can preserve jobs in the United States
and keep more defense suppliers in this country? If not, would you
consider undertaking that evaluation?
Answer. MEP has already been working with domestic defense
suppliers and manufacturers by providing technical assistance and
training to improve productivity, reduce costs, and develop a highly-
skilled workforce. The small manufacturers that MEP Centers have worked
with are crucial to a robust defense supply chain. The strengthening of
this supply chain should help keep critical defense supply and
manufacturing jobs in the United States.
Specific projects within the aerospace and ship building industries
have resulted in connecting small machining companies with Defense
acquisition opportunities and creating groups of engineering and
manufacturing companies that work collaboratively to supply critical
defense equipment and parts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
mep defense suppliers
Question. It is no secret that the biggest challenge facing small
American manufacturers is competition from low-cost overseas
manufacturers. As large manufacturers seek the best, fastest, and
cheapest suppliers, they are increasingly looking overseas. With great
success, the Wisconsin MEP center has worked with large manufacturers
like Oshkosh Truck, Harley Davidson and John Deere on a supplier
development model to keep jobs at home.
So far, the Wisconsin MEP has trained MEP centers in sixteen
states, proving there is a strong need for this training nationally.
Mr. Jeffrey, can you develop a plan based on the Wisconsin model
for using the MEP system to strengthen our domestic suppliers so that
we can preserve jobs in the United States and keep more suppliers in
this country?
Answer. The Wisconsin MEP Supplier Development model addresses
several components of the supply chain issues faced by manufacturers.
The Wisconsin model and the positive impacts realized by manufacturers
have been presented at several MEP quarterly meetings making more
centers aware of the approach. Within the past year, fifteen other MEP
Centers have participated in or employed the model assisting 123 small
and medium-sized suppliers in states, such as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
mep and energy costs
Question. When I talk to manufacturers in Wisconsin, they tell me
the same thing I am sure you are hearing across the Nation: energy
costs are killing them. In the 2005 Energy bill, I inserted language
into the Energy bill that directs the Small Business Administration to
work with you and the MEP program to improve energy efficiency for
small businesses, including manufacturers.
Can you update me on what is going on with this program?
Answer. Building upon existing relationships and contacts with
other Federal agencies, NIST MEP has offered the assistance of the
national network to educate manufacturers and better implement energy
management approaches as described in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
NIST MEP has coordinated with the Small Business Administration
(SBA) Small Business Development Center, the Department of Energy (DOE)
Industrial Technologies Program and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Partnership Programs on the HVAC Maintenance Consumer Education
Program.
NIST MEP is also developing a comprehensive energy awareness and
implementation program with manufacturers that will result in increased
energy efficiency, reduced business and operations costs, waste
reduction, and new technology adoption.
MEP has also teamed with the EPA through the Green Supplier
Network--a collaborative venture among industry, the EPA, and MEP--to
help suppliers learn ways to save money, optimize resource use, and
eliminate waste through on-site technical reviews. This will help
reduce the negative impact that manufacturing suppliers have on the
environment.
DOE's Industrial Assessment Centers (IAC) are sharing their energy
assessment expertise and tools with MEP, which in turn help small
manufacturers on the HVAC Maintenance Consumer Education Program and
other similar energy conservation related efforts.
MEP and SBA have developed a joint-teaming delivery system that
provides small businesses with access to Lean implementation tools to
improve business operations and reduce operating costs contributing to
energy conservation.
In a broader context, MEP has taken the lead in organizing the
Interagency Network of Enterprise Assistance Providers (INEAP)--a
network of Federal government agencies and programs including EPA, SBA
and DOE's IACs--that addresses issues that facilitate the success of
small businesses and smaller manufacturers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
survey of income and program participation
Question. The President's budget for last year proposed eliminating
the Survey of Income and Program Participation (the SIPP) but according
to many experts it failed to provide an adequate plan for maintaining
the kind of longitudinal data that CBO and others have used to analyze
income volatility. What is being done to make sure that we continue to
collect data that allows us to examine the impact of a wide variety of
government programs over time?
Answer. Census is continuously consulting with major SIPP
stakeholders to assure that the new Dynamics of Well-being System
(DEWS) will continue to supply the data needed to meet the goals of the
current SIPP as well as the goals of monitoring a changing economy. The
overall goal of the DEWS is to reengineer the current SIPP to construct
a streamlined system that can provide similar information at a reduced
cost, with improved data quality, improved timeliness, and improved
data accessibility. While the lag between data collection and release
decreases over time within a SIPP Panel, at the beginning of a panel
the lag between data collection and release can be as long as three
years. By contrast, we anticipate being able to release data from DEWS
within one year of their collection.
The system will be able to generate data that can be used, in part,
as SIPP data have been used, to provide accurate and comprehensive
information about the income and program participation of individuals
and households in the United States. The DEWS will provide a nationally
representative sample that can be used to evaluate the annual and sub-
annual dynamics of income, the movements into and out of government
transfer programs, the effect on family and social context of
individuals and households, and the interaction among these items. The
longitudinal nature of SIPP will be retained in DEWS as a critical
aspect of its value to many major stakeholders. The three year panel
length planned for the first Panel of DEWS is the minimum length of
time major stakeholders, including CBO, felt necessary for their
longitudinal analysis.
Question. Is there sufficient funding in the budget to prevent a
``data gap'' between ending the SIPP and the new Dynamics of Economic
Well-being System (DEWS)? Will we be able to compare data historically
between the two surveys?
Answer. The Budget provides $15.9 million (an increase of $6.7
million over the 2007 Budget) to continue the development of the new
Dynamics of Economic Well-being System (DEWS). However, to ensure
Census can focus its efforts and be successful at fielding the new
survey in 2009, the Budget does not include funding to continue SIPP
data collection in 2008. Therefore, there will be a short ``data gap''
between ending the SIPP and beginning of DEWS.
Data collection will end for SIPP in September 2007. We will have
full data through May, partial data through August, and no data from
September through December 2007. The first DEWS data collection will
provide data for calendar year 2008. It should be noted that there have
been gaps in the SIPP series before. For example to enable the Census
Bureau to initiate a new panel in February 2001 and process data more
recently collected, data collected from February to September 2000 were
never released and data from October 2000 to January 2001 were never
collected. Based on those experiences and consultations with our
Federal agency partners, we believe that a similar data gap between
SIPP and DEWS will not hamper program evaluation or modeling. Unless
the two surveys are conducted for the same time period, a complete
evaluation of the impact of any differences in the two surveys on the
same estimates will not be possible.
Question. Has Census done any kind of systematic analysis of
whether we are producing and maintaining the data we need to understand
the important changes that have been taking place in the economy so
that we can adequately answer the kinds of questions that keep coming
up about the extent of income volatility or the impact of outsourcing
or globalization on the quality of jobs?
Answer. Census is continuously consulting with major SIPP
stakeholders to assure that the new Dynamics of Well-being System
(DEWS) will continue to supply the data needed to meet the goals of the
current SIPP as well as the goals of monitoring a changing economy. The
DEWS will provide a nationally representative sample that can be used
to evaluate the annual and sub-annual dynamics of income, the movements
into and out of government transfer programs, the effect on family and
social context of individuals and households, and the interaction among
these items. Labor force participation is integral to measuring these
concepts, and in evaluating and modeling the effects of programs on
these estimates. DEWS will continue to provide the same general labor
force information historically provided by SIPP. As far as we know,
however, SIPP has never been used to specifically evaluate the impact
of outsourcing or globalization on the quality of jobs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
ita trade act 2002
Question. The Trade Act of 2002 requires that the Bush
Administration reserve the U.S. trade laws. I understand that, in prior
appearances before the Congress, namely before the Senate Finance
Committee, you advised 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 the United States has made some submissions in the Rules
negotiations in the past two years, with the exception of papers on
causation, expanding prohibited subsidies, and the proposal on
perishable and seasonal agricultural products, most proposals either
simply seek to codify existing U.S. practice, or improve transparency
and processes abroad.
Consequently, would you please identify for the Committee (1) each
WTO dispute over the past five years in which U.S. trade remedy laws
have been challenged and in which the WTO has issued a determination
adverse to the United States; and (2) what specific proposals to
correct those erroneous determinations have been submitted by the
United States in the Rules negotiations in either 2005 or 2006. If no
specific proposals have been submitted by the United States in the last
two years, please identify when such proposals will be submitted,
consistent with the Congressional mandate contained in the Trade Act of
2002.
Answer. There have been numerous WTO disputes over the last 5 years
in which the U.S. trade remedy decisions have been challenged. In
response, we have pursued an aggressive strategy in the WTO Rules
Negotiations of defending our trade remedy regime, targeting the unfair
trade practices of others, and improving transparency and due process
in trade remedy proceedings so that U.S. producers and exporters are
fairly treated. We continue to follow the basic principles that we laid
out early in the Rules negotiations, namely to seek to: (1) maintain
the strength and effectiveness of the trade laws; (2) enhance
transparency and due process requirements; (3) enhance disciplines on
trade distorting practices that lead to unfair trade; and (4) ensure
that dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body do not impose
obligations that are not clearly contained in the Agreements.
As of July 2006, when the formal negotiations were suspended, the
U.S. negotiating team advanced proposals to address many of the Rules
issues that are negotiating ``priorities'' for our domestic industry
and Congress. These include such areas as facts available, causation,
and the all-others rate, where we are seeking to correct the
substantive results of certain disputes that we think were incorrectly
decided by WTO panels. Some of the other proposals advanced include
circumvention, new shippers, and perishable seasonal agriculture, all
of which are priorities identified by the domestic industry and
Congress.
This Administration is committed to strong enforcement of our trade
laws, and fulfilling our TPA obligations. The Administration will
continue to consult closely with the Congress as the negotiations
proceed.
continued dumping subsidy offset act of 2000
Question. The Administration previously 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 repeatedly called for
negotiations in the Doha Round to address this issue, not only in
letters sent to the Administration, but also in legislation signed into
law. Further, report language accompanying a series of Consolidated
Appropriations Acts directed the Administration to report to the
Appropriations Committee every 60 days on the status of those
negotiations. I understand that Commerce Department officials have a
very important role in such 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.'' And, while
undergoing your 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. You indicated that
the agencies 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 not only the
adverse CDSOA decision, but also other WTO decisions where WTO
Panelists and the Appellate Body have overreached and created
obligations never agreed to by U.S. negotiators.
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 recognizing the right of WTO Members to
distribute monies collected from antidumping and countervailing duties.
Can you please explain how the Administration intends to obtain an
acceptable and expeditious solution to the CDSOA and other WTO
disputes, where the WTO has inappropriately breached its authority in
decisions adversely affecting the trade laws of the United States?
Answer. We have been concerned with the possibility of the WTO
dispute settlement system, in your words, ``inappropriately breach[ing]
its authority.'' The USTR has noted our disagreement with certain
dispute settlement reports and the reasons for those disagreements in
appropriate circumstances. In addition, Commerce has raised WTO panel
decisions on such topics as zeroing in the ongoing Rules negotiations.
As you know, Congress repealed the CDSOA to comply with the adverse WTO
ruling. We evaluate each decision on its own and work in conjunction
with Congress to find an appropriate response. Where we believe
revision of the agreement is necessary, we work with other members of
the WTO toward accomplishing those changes.
wto disputes
Question. From 1995 to 2006, over 40 percent of all decisions
adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body addressed trade remedy
disputes involving the WTO Antidumping (AD), Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (SCM) and Safeguards Agreements. And, I
understand that, in 2005 and 2006, an even higher percentage--over 60
percent--of WTO disputes initiated were trade remedy disputes. The
United States, which actively helped shape the trade remedy rules and
has a highly transparent system providing significant due process of
law, is the primary target of those WTO trade remedy disputes. In fact,
I have been advised that the United States has been the defending party
in roughly 60 percent of the trade remedy decisions adopted by the WTO
Dispute Settlement Body from 1995 to 2006. More specifically, the
United States was the defending party in almost 50 percent of requests
for consultations filed since 1995 concerning the WTO Antidumping
Agreement in particular. Yet, the United States imposed only 12.6
percent of all antidumping measures imposed by all WTO Members from
1995 to June 2006. In the trade remedy area, the WTO has, often
wrongly, found one or more violations by the United States in nearly 90
percent of disputes, imposing on the United States obligations that our
Nation never agreed to in trade talks. In fact, the United States
actively opposed ``zeroing'' during negotiations. Thus, it is clear
that the WTO dispute settlement system is being used unfairly,
threatening U.S. sovereignty and eroding the effectiveness of our
country's trade remedy laws. Despite this, the United States has
submitted only a handful of publicly available proposals in the Rules
negotiations suggesting textual modifications to correct instances of
``overreaching'' by the Appellate Body.
When and how do you intend to collaborate with USTR to correct this
continuing imbalance? What is your strategy to rapidly generate textual
proposals that will better protect existing U.S. trade laws?
Answer. We are fully aware of the frequency in which the United
States has had to defend its trade remedy laws before the WTO Dispute
Settlement Body and have collaborated with USTR to address this issue
since the inception of the Doha Round. In the context of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding negotiations, we have raised proposals
addressing the problem of the Appellate Body creating rights and
obligations that are not contained in the underlying agreements.
Additionally, in the Rules negotiations, the United States continues to
emphasize the importance of clearly written rules so that the dispute
settlement process will involve less interpretation to the extent that
the intent of the Members is clearer. As the negotiations progress, in
close coordination with USTR, we plan to intensify our efforts to
advance the proposals already tabled that will protect U.S. trade laws
and direct the WTO Dispute Settlement Body toward a balanced decision
making process.
doha dispute settlement negotiations
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.''
Can you please provide the status of U.S. efforts to advance
negotiations concerning items (1), (2), and (3), above, and advise the
Committee when specific proposals will be submitted by the United
States addressing the fourth item, namely reversing the WTO's findings
with respect to CDSOA, zeroing, and injury determinations?
Answer. In the context of the Dispute Settlement Body negotiations,
USTR, collaborating with Commerce, has introduced two sets of
proposals--including proposed text. The first set of proposals would
expand transparency and public access to dispute settlement proceedings
by opening panel hearings to the public, requiring public versions of
written submissions, providing for early public release of panel
reports, and setting guidelines for amicus curiae submissions. The
second set of proposals, submitted jointly with Chile, contains
provisions aimed at giving parties to a dispute more control over the
process and greater flexibility to settle disputes. These proposals
address such concepts, among others, as ensuring that panel members
have appropriate expertise to appreciate the issues presented in a
dispute and providing additional guidance to WTO adjudicative bodies
concerning the nature and scope of the issues and rules of
interpretation of the WTO agreements. These proposals are still on the
table, and as the negotiations progress, we will intensify our
collaboration with USTR to advance the key concepts encompassed by the
proposals.
We agree that the Appellate Body's findings raise concerns;
however, we also place significant importance on respecting the dispute
settlement system and addressing the findings, whether we agree with
them or not, through the appropriate mechanisms. First, we are
developing our thoughts and options with respect to implementation and
are committed to consulting closely with Congress as to the appropriate
way to move forward in response to the Japan zeroing report. Second, we
will continue to use the Rules negotiations as a forum to educate other
Members on the troubling implications of the Appellate Body reports,
particularly with respect to their own antidumping systems. We firmly
believe that the zeroing issue is one that must be addressed through
negotiation and we are in close consultation with USTR regarding how to
move forward.
Likewise, injury is part of our affirmative agenda in the Rules
negotiations, and we have submitted proposals to address specifically
the problem created by the WTO decision related to this issue. As the
Negotiations progress, we will continue to advance these proposals and
address our injury concerns as an integral part of the U.S. negotiating
strategy.
Regarding CDSOA, we have been concerned with the possibility of the
WTO dispute settlement system, in your words, ``inappropriately
breach[ing] its authority.'' The USTR has noted our disagreement with
certain dispute settlement reports and the reasons for those
disagreements in appropriate circumstances. However, in light of the
importance we attach to respecting the dispute settlement system, noted
above, and the potential consequences of a failure to abide by
Appellate Body decisions, we evaluate each decision on its own and work
in conjunction with Congress to find an appropriate response. Where we
believe revision of the agreement is necessary, we work with other
members of the WTO toward accomplishing those changes.
wto appellate body
Question. As described in prior questions, it is unfortunate that
the WTO Appellate Body for several years now has been engaged in
improperly expanding its mandate by making a series of decisions that
undermine our Nation's trade remedy laws. One of the most egregious of
these decisions has been issued against the U.S. antidumping duty
practice called ``zeroing.
On one level, the Bush Administration should be commended for
combating these zeroing decisions, which would force the United States
to collect less than 100 percent of dumping duties owed. For example,
in recent statements before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the
Administration has called Appellate Body reports against zeroing
``deeply flawed,'' and ``devoid of legal merit.''
Yet, on February 22, 2007, the Commerce Department nonetheless
implemented the findings of the Appellate Body with respect to
``zeroing'' in investigations, and, two days earlier, the
Administration told the WTO that it would comply with its WTO
obligations with respect to ``zeroing'' in other phases of antidumping
proceedings.
Why would the United States implement Appellate Body reports that
it admits are ``deeply flawed'' and ``devoid of legal merit''? Couldn't
the United States simply refuse to implement these ``deeply flawed''
WTO decisions and, instead, seek a negotiated solution through the WTO
Doha Round negotiations? This would be consistent with our Nation's
statements on the Appellate Body's report before the Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB), which consisted of the following:
``Were this a municipal court result, such an illogical outcome
would be a prime candidate for reconsideration by the legislative
branch. That is no less the case here, and the United States submits
that Members take up this issue, which affects the antidumping systems
of a number of Members, in the Rules negotiations.''
When will the United States submit a proposal in the Rules
negotiations addressing this issue?
Answer. We agree that the Appellate Body's recent findings on
zeroing in reviews are very troubling, however, we also place
significant importance on respecting the dispute settlement system and
addressing the findings, whether we agree with them or not, through the
appropriate mechanisms. To that end, we are thinking about this issue
along two tracks. First, we are developing our thoughts and options
with respect to implementation and are committed to consulting closely
with Congress as to the appropriate way to move forward in response to
the Japan zeroing report. Second, we will continue to use the Rules
negotiations as a forum to educate other Members on the troubling
implications of the Appellate Body reports, particularly with respect
to their own antidumping systems. We firmly believe that this zeroing
issue is one that must be addressed through negotiation and we are in
close consultation with USTR regarding how to move forward.
cafta--sock trade
Question. In July 2005, during the CAFTA debate before the U.S.
House of Representatives, you and U.S. Trade Representative Portman
wrote a letter in which you advised that the United States would
initiate a special CAFTA textile safeguard re-imposing U.S. tariffs on
imported socks for three years, if imports ``cause or threaten to cause
serious damage to the domestic industry.'' You stated that you wished
to be ``pro-active in initiating a sock safeguard if the situation were
to warrant it.''
I have been apprised that, since CAFTA came into effect 11 months
ago, sock imports from Honduras have increased by roughly 40 percent.
Domestic production is falling, and over 20 U.S. sock mills have
closed. Because it appears that the situation today may warrant the
initiation of a safeguard on imported socks, is the Administration
prepared to seek such a safeguard? Does the Administration intend to
honor its prior commitment to the Congress in this regard, even as it
seeks additional free trade agreements? Is there some reason that
CAFTA's negotiators failed to anticipate and address the possibility of
such an un-level playing field in trade in socks?
Answer. As you noted, on July 27, 2005, USTR Rob Portman and I
promised Congressman Aderholt that the Administration would (1) include
socks in any textile agreement with China, (2) ensure that, if the
existing China sock safeguard was renewed, it would be in place for the
maximum possible time period at the minimum possible safeguard level,
(3) seek to amend CAFTA-DR to alter the rules of origin or to lengthen
the tariff phase-out for socks, and (4) to proactively utilize the
CAFTA-DR textile safeguard for socks, if warranted. The Administration
subsequently, as promised, included socks in the China textile
agreement, concluded a special China sock quota agreement while the
China textile talks were ongoing, and has pursued a sock amendment to
the CAFTA-DR. We also are carefully monitoring CAFTA-DR sock import
data and, as promised, will proactively utilize the CAFTA-DR safeguard,
if warranted by the facts. To assess whether safeguard action may be
warranted, the Department of Commerce carefully monitors imports of
socks from CAFTA-DR signatories and other relevant data, including
domestic production data, to assess whether imports of socks from these
countries are causing, or threatening to cause, serious damage to the
domestic industry as a result of the elimination of duties under the
Agreement, which went into effect for Honduras on April 1, 2006.
Notably, imports of socks from Honduras fell in each of the last three
months of 2006 to levels lower than before CAFTA went into effect.
Nevertheless, we are closely tracking the data and will act should data
warrant a safeguard, but it is worth noting that domestic production
was down by only 1.1 percent in 2006 from 2005 levels.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
bea's r&d budget initiative
Question. The BEA has a proposal for $2.1 million to measure the
impact of research and development on the economy. Can you tell us more
about this initiative and how it will impact future GDP calculations?
Answer. While most economists believe that R&D and other
investments in intangibles are among the most important sources of
growth in GDP and productivity--with some estimates ranging as high as
40 percent of growth--there are no hard official estimates on their
impact. This project will provide the Nation with a much clearer
picture of the impact of investments in R&D and other intangibles on
trend growth in GDP and productivity, as well as their impact over the
course of the business cycle. The BEA project will provide aggregate
data, as well as data on the effects across industries, across regions
of the country, and its impact on our international trade and balance
of payments. These data will prove useful in a broad variety of
contexts ranging from monetary policy and budget projections to tax
policy and the funding of investments in R&D.
BEA is in the early stages of developing estimates for R&D as
investment, and these estimates will not be fully incorporated into the
National Income and Product Accounts until 2013. However, this
preparatory work, in the form of satellite accounts, can provide
valuable information on the effect of investment in R&D on U.S.
economic growth. The preliminary R&D satellite accounts released in
September 2006 showed R&D investment accounted for 6.5 percent of
growth in real GDP between 1995 and 2002 and 4.5 percent of growth
between 1959 and 2002. In comparison, businesses' investment in
commercial and all other types of buildings accounted for just over 2
percent of real GDP growth between 1959 and 2002.
noaa joci and the ocean policy scorecard
Question. Although NOAA's 2008 budget request boasts a $123 million
increase for ocean-related activities, it represents a fraction of the
true budgetary needs for the marine community. For the past few years,
the Joint Ocean Commission, which formed the inception of the
President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan, has clearly and objectively laid
out the budgetary requirements to better support ocean-related science
research and education. I am extremely concerned that Congress
continually receives a budget request from the Administration that
downplays these critical activities. I wonder at what level your
department endorses marine science, because frankly, Mr. Secretary, the
Senate is weary of being the only federal entity that champions this
funding disparity.
Are you familiar with the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, and
the contents of its recent publications, namely the U.S. Ocean Policy
Report Card for 2006? And are you aware that the category for ``New
funding for ocean policy and programs'' received the grade of ``F''?
What are your thoughts on this grade?
Answer. Yes, I am familiar with both the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative and the recent Ocean Policy Score Card. We are pleased to
note that we have had grade improvements for 2006 in five out of the
six subject areas. We were also pleased with the overall scores for
Ocean Governance and Fisheries Management Reform. With respect to the
grade for ``new funding for ocean policy and programs,'' the scorecard
was issued prior to the release of the fiscal year 2008 President's
Budget. The fiscal year 2008 Budget includes significant new increases
in support of implementing the Ocean Action Plan, addressing many of
the concerns noted by the Report Card.
ntia public safety interoperable communications grant program
Question. Mr. Secretary, your department has entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the Department of Homeland Security to
assist in the development of policies, procedures and regulations
governing the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant
program.
What role will your department play in developing the grant
guidance package and eligibility requirements for this $1 billion
program?
Answer. The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) is working very closely with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the development of grant
guidance and requirements for the program. Consistent with the
requirements of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the Call Home Act
of 2006, NTIA retains final approval authority for policies, procedures
and regulations that govern the PSIC Grant Program.
Question. The Department of Homeland Security has been grappling
with the issue of interoperable communications for years. I sit on the
appropriations subcommittee for that department as well. These funds
are intended to focus on the purchase of equipment to address
interoperability.
Mr. Secretary, tell me how your involvement will ensure this
funding will be put to the best use by the localities in Alabama and
throughout the United States to achieve true interoperability across
county and state lines?
Answer. NTIA intends to use its expertise to explore and encourage
all technology solutions that are available to first responders to
advance overall interoperability. With the Statewide Interoperability
Communications Plans and the PSIC investment justifications, NTIA and
DHS will be able to approve projects that clearly identify
interoperability gaps and provide the greatest benefit toward improved
interoperability.
Question. Will Commerce work to ensure that the choice for a
workable solution to interoperability will rest in the hands of locals
and will not be dictated from the federal level?
Answer. NTIA understands that interoperability is a complex issue
and no one federal solution exists. Local governments have collectively
spent billions of dollars on communication infrastructure. The program
guidance and application process for the PSIC Grant Program will be
designed to leverage existing investments to build and sustain
intrastate and interstate regional capabilities and identified needs.
NTIA is working with DHS to develop the grant guidance that ensures
that funding will be passed through to eligible public safety agencies.
2010 census--cost effectiveness
Question. The President's budget request includes increased funding
for the Census Bureau in anticipation of conducting the decennial
census. These increases are quite significant and will continue to grow
over the next several years. While this effort is constitutionally
mandated, there are also other activities that the Census is involved
in, including surveys of state and local governments, as well as
economic indicators.
Mr. Secretary, what efforts are being made to ensure that the 2010
Census is as cost effective and accurate as possible while maintaining
the other capabilities the Bureau provides?
Answer. All the factors that have led to higher costs for each
decennial census since 1970 will continue--besides inflation and
increased workload, these include the increased difficulty of ensuring
coverage accuracy (both overall and for each population group and
jurisdiction); increased public resistance to answering surveys; and
increased diversity that make it more difficult to reach everyone. No
matter what design is chosen, the 2010 Census will be costly.
For the 2010 Decennial Program, compared to the cost of the
previous census (2000), the percentage increase in estimated life cycle
costs will be the lowest in the last four decades. This pattern also
holds when comparing unit costs. Thus, while achieving the significant
benefits to our Nation from the annual release of long-form data by the
new American Community Survey, and improvements to our MAF/TIGER
(geographic) databases, the Reengineered 2010 Census of Population and
Housing also will be significantly less costly than historical trends
would project.
--Cost containment is one of the four key goals for the reengineered
2010 Decennial Census program. When this effort was launched in
2001, we estimated it would save over $400 million compared to
repeating the Census 2000 approach. And, we now estimate that
reverting in fiscal year 2008 to the Census 2000 approach would
cost over $1 billion more than continuing with our reengineered
approach.
--Significant savings and accuracy improvements will result from:
--Not having to collect long-form data in the 2010 Census (because
it now is being collected by the American Community
Survey),
--Restructuring our field data collection process to use GPS-
equipped Handheld Computers (that will benefit from the
improvements to our MAF/TIGER databases), and
--Reducing non-response follow-up workloads by sending a targeted
second mailing of questionnaires to households who do not
respond to initial mail-out, and being able to
electronically remove late mail returns from the non-
response follow-up assignments on the Handheld Computers.
security of personally identifiable information on laptops and other
portable devices
Question. Last year the Department of Commerce reported the loss of
hundreds of laptop computers, thumb drives and data disks used in
collecting data for many of its surveys, including data associated with
the American Community Survey. The Census Bureau is now acquiring
hundreds of handheld devices to be used by temporary employees as part
of the 2010 Census.
Do all portable devices in the Bureau containing sensitive personal
information have the necessary encryption to protect the data if the
computer or handheld is lost or stolen?
Answer. Yes. All data files on the laptops currently being used for
data collection in census survey and census operations are encrypted
(FIPS 140-2 compliant). Full disk encryption for the laptops is under
development and will be implemented later this year. For the 2010
Census, we plan to use handheld computers for collection of Title 13
data for three major operations (Address Canvassing, Non-response
Follow-up and Coverage Measurement Person Interviews), with all others
still being done on paper. All sensitive data collected during the 2008
Dress Rehearsal and 2010 Census using the handheld computers will be
stored on removable secure digital (SD) cards using FIPS 140-2
compliant encryption software.
Question. How can we ensure we protect the privacy of our citizens
if handhelds are lost?
Answer. In addition to the file encryption described above, census
enumerators will access their handheld computers through biometric
technology (fingerprint reader) as well as a response to a question for
which only they would know the answer. All sensitive data are encrypted
while stored on the enumerator's handheld computer's secure digital
(SD) card, as well as during transmission over a secure private network
to the secure data center. Upon successful transmission, all sensitive
data on the enumerator's Handheld Computer that are no longer required
to conduct the census operation will be automatically deleted.
Question. What procedures have been instituted to track devices
that contain sensitive personal information within the Bureau?
Answer. All laptops that currently contain sensitive personal
information are managed through the Census Bureau's automated property
management system (APMS). The APMS assigns a unique identifier to each
device and associates it with the individual that is using it. In
addition, we are implementing new procedures that will require our
census field representatives to enter their laptops' unique identifiers
into an automated questionnaire. This information will be automatically
retrieved by our control systems and matched against the information in
the APMS to ensure that all devices are accounted for on a regular
basis. This procedure should be in place later this Spring.
With respect to the hand-held computes (HHCs), Secure Digital (SD)
Cards (SD), laptop computers, and air cards used in the 2008 Dress
Rehearsal (DR) and 2010 Census, we track who possesses them via a paper
and an automated tracking system. We track all hand-offs of equipment
via a paper process. All staff that deliver or are assigned equipment
sign a paper form acknowledging receipt of that equipment. We also key
the data from the paper forms into Harris' asset management system.
Every time a piece of equipment is replaced, the user signs a paper
form to return the defective device. Staff also sign another paper form
to acknowledge receipt of the replacement device. All paper forms are
stored in computer control files in the Local Census Offices.
Harris provided laptops are used by Field Operations Supervisors.
These laptops are not used for data collection, but do have PII on
them, such as payroll data and staff rosters. These laptops will have
full disk encryption. They will require a user ID and password for
access during 2008 DR Address Canvassing. We plan to add biometric
technology (fingerprint reader) in time for DR Non-Response Follow-Up.
Question. Once the sensitive data is collected on the laptop or
handheld computer and transmitted to the Census Bureau, how do you
ensure that the data is scrubbed from these computers?
Answer. For the laptops currently being used by census field
representatives, the Regional Office survey manager initiates a process
to delete data from the laptops based on the interview period. This
process does not require the census field representative to execute a
routine; it happens automatically as part of the transmission
processing. A date is stored in the survey control database indicating
when this deletion routine was initiated, which allows us to ensure
that it is happening on a regular basis.
With respect to the hand held computers that will be used in the
2008 Census Dress Rehearsal and the 2010 Census, upon successful
transmission, all sensitive data that are no longer required to conduct
the census operation will be automatically deleted. In addition, we
plan to destroy the SD cards following the completion of each operation
to further ensure data protection. Procedures will be fully developed
and tested prior to use in the field.
reauthorization of the noaa corps
Question. The Committee understands that the size of NOAA's fleet
is expanding, yet the NOAA Corps authorization, which regulates the
size of the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps, expired in 2005. The
Committee supports NOAA Corps officers and the valuable expertise they
lend to NOAA's field operations and homeland security activities.
When can Congress expect to receive the legislative package
reauthorizing the NOAA Corps, and may I receive a copy personally?
Answer. We are interested in reauthorizing the NOAA Corps and we
look forward to working with the Committee on this important
legislation. We will ensure that you receive a personal copy of any
legislation the Administration submits to reauthorize the NOAA Corps
when it is delivered.
federal consistency standards and the czma for florida and alabama
Question. Recently, an issue has come up during my meetings with
constituents involving interstate coastal zone management activities,
namely between Florida and Alabama. I am concerned about the potential
situation arising where one state can influence, or even impede,
another state's development projects. I am watching this situation
closely as it unfolds, especially with how it may impact Alabama's
businesses and economic development.
What level of assurances can I receive from you that my office will
be informed of any interstate coastal zone management issues affecting
Alabama?
Answer. We understand that this is an issue of high priority and
importance for Alabama. You have my full assurance that NOAA will
continue to keep you informed as this process unfolds. At this time,
there has not been a formal submission by Florida of a request for
approval to review activities in other states, but, as you know,
Florida has initiated the state and federal agency consultation process
to list activities for interstate consistency review. On March 7, NOAA
staff with the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
facilitated a meeting between the coastal program managers for the
States of Florida, Alabama and Georgia to develop a better
understanding of Florida' intentions, the concerns of neighboring
States, and the expectations that NOAA will place on Florida in
justifying their request for NOAA's approval. In addition to ensuring
that any change to the Florida Coastal Management program is fully
consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act and
NOAA's Interstate Consistency regulations, NOAA will be fully engaged
in a dialog with all of the states and affected federal agencies in
addressing whatever concerns may arise from Florida's proposed
extension of its review authority.
funding levels for severe weather forecasting
Question. Severe weather always threatens the Gulf Coast. Although
last year's hurricane season was relatively light, I still encourage my
constituents to remain vigilant as flooding, tornadoes and severe
thunderstorms are a constant danger.
Are we providing sufficient resources to meet the challenges of
predicting and protecting our citizens from severe weather events?
Answer. NOAA's fiscal year 2008 President's budget request fully
supports its forecast and warning operations. Specifically, NOAA's
fiscal year 2008 budget requests additional funding to improve its
hurricane forecasting program: $3 million for hurricane data buoy O&M,
$1 million for Hurricane Weather-Research Forecast (HWRF) model O&M and
$2 million to accelerate research to improve hurricane intensity
forecasts. NOAA is committed to improving operational effectiveness and
services, particularly for high-impact weather events, by taking full
advantage of emerging science and technological improvements. We are
committed to evolving services to best meet the changing and growing
need for environmental forecasts and services. NOAA's fiscal year 2008
budget request supports efforts to upgrade the NEXRAD Radar network by
implementing dual polarimetric radar. It also supports other efforts
including: improved numerical modeling, data assimilation, education
and outreach, training, forecaster workstation (AWIPS) upgrades, as
well as efforts for future technological advances, such as phased array
radar (PAR). We believe the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request
positions us to make those technical and service improvements.
patent allowance versus patent rejection
Question. I'm aware that you set production goals for PTO
examiners. Those production goals should of course promote quality
examination. The last thing we want is for production goals to be based
solely on patent allowance so that examiner's are motivated to allow a
patent even if the application doesn't warrant such allowance,
resulting in poorer quality patents.
Do you consider patent allowance versus patent rejection when
setting production goals?
Answer. Examiner production goals are set so that an examiner
receives the same amount of credit for an application that is allowed
or becomes abandoned.
Question. The Bureau of the Census has initiated a large IT program
to automate the process of conducting the 2010 Decennial Census, such
as using wireless GPS-enabled handheld computers to directly capture
information collected during interviews. This process is expected to
reduce the need for paper-based processing while increasing operational
efficiency, improving accuracy and reducing costs.
Mr. Secretary, former Census Director Kincannon testified before
Congress last year that capital investment in an automated system to
replace the traditional paper count will save taxpayers approximately
$1 billion to conduct the 2010 Census. Is that estimate still accurate?
Answer. Yes--we still estimate that reverting to paper-based
operations would add more than $1 billion to the total cost of the
program. Thanks in large part to the support of Congress in the
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, we have been able to
continue our efforts for the automation components of the reengineered
census.
Last summer, when those funds were in jeopardy, the Census Bureau
was forced to consider reverting back to paper-based operations that
would have added over $1 billion to the overall cost of the 2010
Census. That estimate is based on the savings we expect to achieve
through the use of handheld computers and other aspects of our
reengineering efforts. If we have to revert to a paper-based census:
--The Census Bureau would have to expand space and office staff in
over 450 temporary Local Census Offices by 50 percent to
conduct 2010 Census operations. The additional space and office
staff would be needed to store, track, and process the
additional paper forms that will be needed if we do not use
handheld computers for data collection.
--Non-response follow-up and other field operations would be less
efficient, requiring significantly more field enumerators.
--We would have to spend significantly more money visiting households
that have already responded to the Census. This is because,
without the handheld computers, we would have no ability to
remove late mail returns (those households that return their
census forms after the date we begin preparing non-response
follow-up assignments) from the assignment lists on those
devices.
--Other cost increases would be inevitable, including increased cost
for paper and other supplies, mileage, and salaries to conduct
a census without automation.
These additional costs would be offset only partially by reductions
in automation costs that would not be incurred (under a paper-based
census) related to the handheld computer equipment.
2010 census--handheld computers
Question. What is the status of the development of the handheld
computer that is critical to the success of this program?
Answer. Thanks in large part to the support of Congress in the
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, we have been able to
continue our efforts for the automation components of the reengineered
census. For the 2008 Dress Rehearsal and the 2010 Decennial Census, the
Census Bureau plans to use handheld computers and supporting services
to directly capture information collected during personal interviews
and eliminate the need for paper maps and address lists for the two
largest field data collection operations (Address Canvassing and Non-
response Follow-up) and for the Census Coverage Measurement Personal
Interview process. The development of handheld computers for these
operations in the Dress Rehearsal is on-track.
dvd piracy in mexico
Question. The Department of Commerce is part of the
Administration's effort to combat global piracy. I understand U.S.
businesses are concerned about DVD piracy in Mexico.
Can you comment on the implications of the recent DVD and CD raid
in Mexico City and what this might mean for United States-Mexican
cooperation to combat piracy?
What is Commerce's role on this issue?
Answer. The Department of Commerce is encouraged by the Mexican
Government's efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting over the past
year. Recent raids by Mexican enforcement officials during February and
March reflect the new Calderon Administration's commitment to the rule
of law and economic competitiveness. However, greater enforcement
efforts and stronger prosecution are still needed in Mexico. According
to the 2007 Special 301 Submission by the International Intellectual
Property Alliance, trade losses due to copyright piracy in Mexico are
estimated to have exceeded $1 billion in 2006. Accordingly, Commerce
continues to monitor Mexico's progress on intellectual property rights
(IPR) issues through the combined efforts of an interagency IPR team.
Additionally, Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) are
working with the Governments of Mexico and Canada on the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America Intellectual Property Action
Strategy, a trilateral initiative to combat piracy and counterfeiting
in North America.
Finally, the USPTO conducts several programs for government
officials in order to improve the level of expertise on intellectual
property enforcement in Latin America. In August of 2006 and February
2007, the USPTO invited Latin American government officials to its
Global Intellectual Property Academy. The Academy provided practical
intellectual property rights enforcement education and capacity-
building to Latin American judges, prosecutors, customs officials, law
enforcement officers and others who are involved in the civil,
administrative or criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Mexican government officials participated in the Academy.
Also, in December of 2006, the USPTO held a Seminar for the
Judiciary on Intellectual Property Enforcement. The program was
attended by both Mexican and Central American judges.
ita cafta nations
Question. Since the enactment of CAFTA, the domestic sock industry
has continued to close plants. The CAFTA nations, particularly
Honduras, have increased their production and importation of socks to
the United States by significant amounts to the detriment of our
domestic industries. Why has the Department of Commerce not granted
their promise to extend the period for tariffs on socks produced in
CAFTA nations?
Answer. As you know, on July 27, 2005, USTR Rob Portman and
Secretary Gutierrez promised Congressman Aderholt that the
Administration would (1) include socks in any textile agreement with
China, (2) ensure that, if the existing China sock safeguard was
renewed, it would be in place for the maximum possible time period at
the minimum possible safeguard level, (3) seek to amend CAFTA-DR to
alter the rules of origin or to lengthen the tariff phase-out for
socks, and (4) to proactively utilize the CAFTA-DR textile safeguard
for socks, if warranted. The Administration subsequently, as promised,
included socks in the China textile agreement, concluded a special
China sock quota agreement while the China textile talks were ongoing,
and has pursued a sock amendment to the CAFTA-DR. We also are carefully
monitoring CAFTA-DR sock import data and, as promised, will proactively
utilize the CAFTA-DR safeguard, if warranted by the facts. To assess
whether safeguard action may be warranted, the Department of Commerce
carefully monitors imports of socks from CAFTA-DR signatories and other
relevant data, including domestic production data, to assess whether
imports of socks from these countries are causing, or threatening to
cause, serious damage to the domestic industry as a result of the
elimination of duties under the Agreement, which went into effect for
Honduras on April 1, 2006. Notably, imports of socks from Honduras fell
in each of the last three months of 2006 to levels lower than before
CAFTA went into effect. Nevertheless, we are closely tracking the data
and will act should data warrant a safeguard, but it is worth noting
that domestic production was down by only 1.1 percent in 2006.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Mikulski. We're going to stand in recess until next
Thursday, March 8, continuing our innovation oversight
hearings. We will be getting testimony from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Director of the
National Science Foundation.
This subcommittee stands in recess until March 8.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Thursday, March 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
March 8.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Inouye, Reed, Stevens, Shelby,
and Hutchison.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD LAUTENBACHER, JR.,
ADMINISTRATOR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Good morning and welcome to the second
hearing of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee. As I
said in the first hearing, the themes of the subcommittee will
be innovation, security, and accountability. Today's hearing
will focus on two of the premiere agencies that promote
innovation in our society and using the principles of the
gathering storm, which is that innovation rests on research,
discovery as well as on education. We are looking forward to
hearing from the National Science Foundation (NSF) as well as
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Just a brief announcement before I go more deeply into my
statement and listen to our ranking member. On March 25, the
subcommittee will conduct a classified hearing on the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which will deal with their role
in counterterrorism. We remember that after 9/11, we chose not
to create--but an agency within the agency. There are aspects
of the agency's law enforcement responsibilities that are
deeply involved in the global war against terrorism. We will be
holding traditional public hearings but we will also be holding
classified hearings. So we want to alert the members of the
very important meeting with the FBI.
But today, we're examining the budgets for the National
Science Foundation and NOAA, focusing on innovation, education,
and accountability. This isn't about line items in the budget.
It's about our country and how we're going to compete in the
global economy. It's about science. It's about the climate
crisis. It's about educating our young people to come into the
fields of science, technology, and engineering. We're holding
this hearing in the midst of an awakening in this country about
these particular issues. We all know that the issue just of
climate--the climate crisis has resulted in a former colleague
winning an Oscar and who knows, maybe a Nobel Prize.
The CJS Subcommittee is the innovation subcommittee in the
United States Senate appropriation process.
NSF and NOAA are two key innovation agencies relating to
discovery that have power to save lives, protect our
communities, protect the planet, and create prosperity for our
country. I'm pleased that the NSF is in the President's
innovation agenda but I'm sorry that NOAA isn't as well.
As we look at today's hearing, we will be looking at broad
topics but I want to assure everyone that one of the areas of
focus will be on the climate crisis. The CJS Subcommittee is
going to look a little green while we look at the blue planet.
What do I mean by that? I believe that every public policy
should be based on sound science. In that way, we can build the
coalitions necessary to create the positive and constructive
solutions while minimizing at the same time, any economic
increase or dislocation.
As we look at the budget requests for NSF and NOAA, we're
going to follow the roadmaps given to us by the National
Academy of Sciences and the blueprint given to us by the Joint
Ocean Commission initiative.
Seventy percent of the Earth is covered by oceans. When you
look at us from space, we are big blue. Our Nation's economy
depends on the oceans, contributing over $120 billion to our
Nation's economy, supporting 2 million jobs. The Senator from
Alabama as well as myself, are coastal Senators. We know how
important our oceans and our estuaries are. We also know how
oceans influence the weather and we know that the focus also of
this subcommittee will be a very good weather prediction.
Alabama was hit very hard by Katrina and they worry about
every hurricane season. Maryland was hit so hard most recently
by Isabel. We need the National Weather Service but we need
also those scientists and so on, that can give us early
predictions and early warnings but also those kinds of things
that mitigate against what is changing in our climate that then
could be exacerbating these weather disruptions that we are
seeing, from wild fires to hurricanes.
At the same time, we want to know about education, how
we're going to be able to attract the best and the brightest
into science, engineering, and technology. What are the
financial supports that we need to provide to be able to do
that? Because that is where our future lies.
At the same time, we'll be focusing on the accountability
from the NOAA satellites to the NSF research stations and
observatories. We know they are critical tools but we have
faced cost overruns and schedule slippages.
So we're here--we're here to really promote innovation. So
it is not about agencies. It's not about line items, though it
is about that. But it is about our Nation's future. I want to
make sure we continue to be a superpower but that our
superpower rests on our intellectual capital and the values
that we stand for in the world.
Having said that, I turn to my ranking member, Senator
Shelby, for anything he has to say.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman and thank you,
Admiral Lautenbacher and Dr. Bement for joining us today.
This is an important hearing, as the chairman has pointed
out because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the
critical roles the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration we know as NOAA and the National Science
Foundation, the NSF, play in the economic, scientific, and
technology drive the engine of our country's economic future,
as the chairman mentioned.
Cutting edge technology creates a better quality of life
for all of us. The strategic Federal investment in scientific
research, particularly the funding supporting NSF has led to
innovative problem solving and technological developments that
have dramatically increased the country's economic growth.
NOAA's budget request for the year 2008 is $3.8 billion.
This is a decrease of $100 million from the funding level
provided in the joint resolution of 2007.
In stark contrast to the budget for NOAA, the budget
request for NSF is $6.4 billion, an increase of $513 million
over the 2007 joint resolution level.
Our Nation as a whole seems to do more to protect--needs to
do more to protect our citizens, not just with storm prediction
but also with disaster response and community preparedness. We
must improve short-term forecasting and gain a better
understanding of long-term climate change. The National Weather
Service, which is an important part of NOAA, is key to this
understanding. After forecasting, we must explore what can be
done in advance communications so that warnings can reach
communities quicker. We must find better ways to respond.
Emergency coordination after a severe storm is a critical but
often overlooked function in saving lives.
Last Friday, as a lot of you know, my home State of Alabama
was devastated by a storm system that spawned killer
tornadoes--I believe it was Thursday that claimed the lives of
10 people and destroyed hundreds of homes and a school and
severely damaged another school. In southeast Alabama's Coffee
County, a tornado slammed into Enterprise High School. Not far
from the school in Enterprise, an elderly woman was killed by
flying storm debris. In west Alabama's Wilcox County, the storm
claimed the life of a Miller's Fairy father who was crushed in
his home.
While we will never recover from the loss of life, I'm
certain that the people of Alabama will work to rebuild even
stronger communities and I will continue to do everything in my
power to get them the resources that they need to do so. It
will take time and resources for the damaged communities to
begin to heal and erase the scars of this destruction and
death.
The people of Alabama--my State--are resilient and have
already begun cleaning up and planning to rebuild. I saw this
firsthand when I toured some of the damaged areas this past
Saturday.
But how can we ensure that they rebuild safer homes and
schools to withstand the next storm? I don't have to be a NOAA
weather forecaster to predict that another devastating storm
will hit my State again and other States. It's just a matter of
time.
Will our citizens be any safer? Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina,
and Rita showed us how vulnerable we are to natural disasters.
Last week, we were grimly reminded that we still have a long
way to go in finding answers to the lessons taught us by those
hurricanes. Science, technology, and research hold many of
these answers.
Today, Admiral, I will be asking for your support and
guidance on how we can better respond to these natural storms,
be they hurricanes, tornadoes or what. Last week's storms
claimed 20 lives from Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri. We cannot
eliminate severe storms--we know that. But we should envision a
day when we can live with them more safely.
Overall, I'm concerned about the health of NOAA's science
budget. Congress continually receives a budget request from the
administration that downplays critical science activities when
compared to the previous year's funding levels. The NOAA 2008
request is less than what the agency received in 2007, 2006 and
Madam Chairman, even 2005.
In past years, the Joint Ocean Commission has clearly and
objectively laid out the budgetary requirements to better
support ocean-related science research and education. NOAA's
budget request boasts a $123 million increase for ocean-related
activities while the National Science Foundation requests to
study marine ecosystems and associated human impacts, contains
only a $17 million increase. These mighty figures represent
only a fraction of the true budgetary needs for the marine
community.
I'm pleased to see that the American competitiveness
initiative, ACI, has continued to receive support from the
administration through the National Science Foundation's budget
request. The ACI will keep the competitive edge that our Nation
expects in the world economy through research and innovation by
focusing on the ingenuity of our people and tying our
capabilities to policies that will keep us at the forefront of
scientific and technical advancement for generations to come.
The ACI provides a tremendous opportunity to maintain our
national technological advantage in a more competitive world.
I think--I do not think that it goes far enough to take
advantage of our existing Federal investments, however. The
funding of ACI includes an increase of $366 million in the
research and related activities account in NSF. While this
benefits current research, I'm concerned about what we're doing
to encourage the next generation of researchers. The long-term
vision, Madam Chairman, I believe must include increasing
opportunities for colleges and universities across the country
to participate in innovation. Many of the funds provided to NSF
as part of the ACI will go to traditional research schools that
have historically fared well in retaining its research grants.
We should find ways to raise the bar of competitiveness, to
reach out to universities that have not traditionally been
taken into consideration. We also need to provide the funds to
increase the level of science education through better
curriculum and inspiring K through 12 science teachers. NSF is
the ideal place to begin such a long-term investment for this
country.
I'm also concerned about the number of American students
enrolling in science and engineering fields of study. The most
recent report from the Council on Competitiveness states that
foreign students account for most of the growth in Ph.D.s in
science and engineering, despite the progress being made by
females and minorities in this area. Our lack of new scientists
and engineers will eventually become a crisis. We're not
attracting enough young students into these disciplines and are
relying too heavily on foreign students. These same students
return to their homeland where competitive jobs are becoming
increasingly available.
To remain at the cutting edge of innovation, I believe we
need to act now in cultivating our next generation of engineers
and scientists. There is much untapped potential within our own
borders. We must make this a priority. The Office of Science
and Technology Policy states that the goal of the ACI's goal is
not to introduce entirely new Government programs but to
increase fundamental research capacity and while there is
significant Federal investment in research and innovation,
there should be a much broader vision to include agencies
beyond those already included in the ACI while not diluting
current efforts.
Along those lines, it is discouraging to see that the
administration wants to see the Nation at the forefront of
innovation yet chooses to exclude NOAA from the initiative.
This is perplexing.
NOAA stands out as an international leader in marine and
atmospheric science and is a cornerstone of our Nation's
research community. NOAA's education and outreach activities
appear to fall directly in line with the ACI's educational
goals. As I stated here in last week's Department of Commerce
hearing, I'm concerned why this agency is not recognized as a
candidate for the ACI program.
At this point, I want to thank Chairman Mikulski for having
this hearing today and I look forward to the testimony.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby and
as usual, I'm going to associate myself with your remarks.
There are two key agencies that have, I believe, been left out
of the ACI. Certainly NOAA, our flagship agency and on oceans,
fisheries, and weather as well NASA. The fact that NASA was
left out of ACI is absolutely stunning. There are two
colleagues. I'd like to go right to the testimony rather than
opening statements and you make them then when you get to the
questions and answers. That way, we can move right along. Does
that sound good?
Therefore, let's go right to those who are ready to
testify. Why don't we start with, Admiral Lautenbacher and go
to the National Science Foundation?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD LAUTENBACHER, JR.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shelby,
Senator Hutchison, Senator Reed, distinguished staff members,
thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on behalf
of the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for NOAA and
also thank you for your extremely important leadership in the
areas that are under NOAA's responsibility. The support of this
subcommittee has been extremely important to our ability to
carry out the mission that is required for our country, so
thank you very much for your continued support of our programs.
Our programs and services impact one-third of U.S. gross
domestic product. Our environmental information is vital to the
competitiveness of our country in the world marketplace and to
the security and safety of our people here at home. Our
investments in research and technology contribute to our
Nation's innovative culture and our work to conserve and manage
coastal and marine resources ensures economic vitality and
enhances U.S. trade.
NOAA has had many notable accomplishments in 2006, some of
which are mentioned in my written statement. I would like to
take a moment to just highlight a couple of those before I move
into the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
Thanks to the funding from Congress, NOAA was able to
provide a NOAA weather all-hazards radio to every public school
in America. That's 97,000 radios. These radios provide
automatic alerts for severe weather, manmade disasters such as
chemical spills and terrorist threats as well as Amber Alerts
for missing children. While tragedies will still occur as they
did last week with the tornado mentioned by Senator Shelby,
officials there did receive our warnings on their weather radio
and actions were taken. Unfortunately, lives were still lost
but many fewer were lost as a result of the warning and the
radios and the procedures that were in effect.
In June, the President designated the northwestern Hawaiian
Islands as a marine national monument, the largest single act
of marine conservation in history. Encompassing nearly 140,000
square miles, the monument includes 4,500 square miles of
relatively undisturbed coral reef habitat, home to more than
7,000 species. For the first time, NOAA will play a leading
role in managing a national monument. This is an exciting and
important opportunity for NOAA.
In December, NOAA achieved initial operating capability for
the expanded U.S. tsunami warning system. This means that the
most dangerous tsunami generation areas are covered by tsunami
deepwater buoy stations and last April, the Nation's two
tsunami warning centers became operational 24 by 7. This
combination of buoys and around-the-clock warning capability
has greatly increased the security of the Nation's people
living along Pacific coastlines.
Before I highlight the fiscal year 2008 budget request, I
want to draw your attention to the fact that this year, NOAA is
celebrating 200 years of science, service, and stewardship. In
1807, President Thomas Jefferson founded the Survey of the
Coast to provide nautical charts to the marine community. Safe
passage of vessels to American ports and along our coastlines
was critical to increasing trade and building the U.S. economy,
just as it is today. The Survey of the Coast, along with the
Weather Bureau founded in 1870, the U.S. Commission on Fish and
Fisheries in 1871, were brought together in 1970 with the
establishment of NOAA. We're very proud to be celebrating this
200-year legacy with Americans across the Nation at events
throughout the year.
My written testimony presents the details of the budget as
it aligns with five priority areas. First of all, sustaining
critical operations, supporting the U.S. ocean action plan,
improving weather warnings and forecasts, climate monitoring
and research, and critical facilities investments. I will just
highlight a couple of those.
NOAA deg.FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2008 request, as already stated, is $3.8
billion. That does represent a $131 million or 3.4 percent
increase over the President's request from fiscal year 2007 but
it does represent a $96 million decrease from the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
The budget is able to provide modest new investments in our
priority areas while maintaining critical services. In critical
operations, we are providing an increase of $10.1 million for
operations and maintenance of NOAA vessels and aircraft. NOAA
is also driving innovation in research and monitoring by
requesting $3 million in funding to support the further use of
unmanned aircraft systems or UAS. With this funding, NOAA will
evaluate the benefits and potential of using UAS to collect
data crucial for such missions as fishery enforcement, coastal
zone studies, and hurricane forecasting.
Continued implementation of the President's ocean action
plan remains a priority. The fiscal year 2008 budget requests
$123 million in increase to support the plan, including $60
million to advance ocean science and research, $38 million to
protect and restore marine and coastal areas, and $25 million
to ensure sustainable use of ocean resources.
Specifically, the request includes $16.4 million for the
integrated ocean observing system or IOOS for development of
regional systems and improved data management and
communications. It also includes $8 million for enforcement and
management activities in the newly designated Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.
Funding of $10 million is requested to restore nearly 1,000
miles of habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon and other fish
species in New England's largest watershed. Increased funding
of $3 million will support Klamath River salmon recovery
projects.
The fiscal year 2008 budget also provides $20 million in
increases to support better management of fish harvests. This
includes $6.5 million in increases to implement the new and
expanded requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, passed last
season. It provides $3 million to establish the regulatory
framework to facilitate environmentally sustainable commercial
aquaculture. Our Nation currently has an $8 billion trade
deficit in seafood. Providing regulatory certainty will foster
private sector investment in offshore aquaculture, increasing
the Nation's competitiveness in the world seafood market and
decreasing our reliance on imported seafood.
To improve weather warnings and forecasts, we are
requesting a $5 million increase for the support of operation
and maintenance of hurricane data buoys and research on
hurricane intensity that will ultimately save lives. More than
$23 million is requested to continue strengthening the U.S.
tsunami warning program, including an increase of $1.7 million
to deploy additional deep ocean buoy stations.
Climate monitoring and research includes a $9.4 million
increase to support the development of an integrated drought
early warning and forecast system that will also enhance the
Nation's food security by providing earlier and more accurate
drought forecasts. More than one-half of this increase will be
used to research the link between ocean currents and abrupt
climate change.
Finally, critical facilities investments include an
increase of $20 million for the Pacific Regional Center in
Hawaii, which will bring NOAA's Pacific Island programs
together in one facility to improve operations and strengthen
our performance.
Let me conclude briefly by talking about two oversight
issues important to the subcommittee and extremely important to
NOAA. There have been many challenges with our satellite
programs and the national polar-orbiting operational
environmental satellite system (NPOESS) in particular. Let me
assure the subcommittee that I and my staff are doing
everything we can do to ensure that this program stays on
track. We have made numerous personnel and organizational
changes. We are implementing every recommendation from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Department of
Commerce inspector general and I meet with the Under Secretary
of the Air Force and NASA Administrator once a quarter at
least, to review the program in detail, along with the
presidents of the companies who have signed the contract to
develop those satellites. Satellites are complex and risky
tools but they are vital to all aspects of NOAA's mission. I
also want to assure the subcommittee that the Department of
Commerce is in the final stages of updating its communication
policy, which will ensure for generations into the future that
our scientists are able to freely and openly communicate their
science to the media and the public. I have been on the record
with my scientists numerous times supporting their ability to
communicate freely their science activities to the public.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I am
happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, before I begin my
testimony I would like to thank you for your leadership and the
generous support you have shown the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Your continued support for our programs is
appreciated as we work to improve our products and services for the
American people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for NOAA.
The fiscal year 2008 President's budget supports NOAA's priority to
advance mission-critical services. The fiscal year 2008 request is
$3.815 billion, which represents a $131 million or 3.4 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2007 request. This request includes the level of
resources necessary to carry out NOAA's mission, which is to understand
and predict changes in the Earth's environment, and conserve and manage
coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social and
environmental needs. At NOAA we work to protect the lives and
livelihoods of Americans, and provide products and services that
benefit the economy, environment, and public safety of the Nation.
Before I discuss the details of our fiscal year 2008 budget request, I
would like to briefly highlight some of NOAA's notable successes from
the past fiscal year (2006).
fiscal year 2006 accomplishments
President Designates Largest Fully-Protected Marine Area on Earth
Recognizing the continuing need for resource protection, President
Bush designated the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as a marine national
monument on June 15, 2006. Encompassing nearly 140,000 square miles,
the monument covers an area larger than all of our national parks put
together, including 4,500 square miles of relatively undisturbed coral
reef habitat that is home to more than 7,000 species. The creation of
the largest fully-protected marine area in the world is an exciting
achievement and recognizes the value of marine resources to our Nation.
Successful Launch of NOAA Satellite GOES-13 and New Satellite
Operations Facility Ensure Continuity of Improved Data
Collection
On May 24, 2006, officials from NOAA and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) confirmed that a new geostationary
operational environmental satellite, designed to track hurricanes and
other severe weather impacting the Nation, successfully reached orbit.
Upon reaching final orbit, the satellite was renamed GOES-13. This is
the first in a new series of satellites featuring a more stable
platform enabling improved instrument performance. NOAA instruments
were also launched on the European MetOp-A polar-orbiting satellite in
October 2006. Combined with NOAA and Department of Defense (DOD)
operational satellites, MetOp-A will help provide global data for
improving forecasts of severe weather, disaster mitigation, and
monitoring of the environment. This launch ushered in a new era of
U.S.-European cooperation in environmental observing.
In 2006, NOAA satellite operations and data processing groups began
moving into the new NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF). The NSOF
will house the NOAA satellite command and control functions and data
and distribution activities that are central to NOAA's mission. The
NSOF will also house the U.S. Mission Control Center for the Search and
Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking (SARSAT) program and the National Ice
Center (NIC), a joint NOAA/DOD mission to track ice floes and issue
warnings to the Nation's maritime force. The NSOF will become fully
operational in Spring 2007.
Enhancements to NOAA's Fleet of Ships and Aircraft
Significant progress is being made in modernizing NOAA's fleet.
NOAA took delivery of the Fisheries Survey Vessel (FSV) Henry B.
Bigelow, the second of 4 new FSV, on July 25, 2006. The Bigelow has
high-tech capabilities that make it one of the world's most advanced
fisheries research ships. These ships will be able to perform hydro-
acoustic fish surveys and conduct bottom and mid-water trawls while
running physical and biological oceanographic sampling during a single
deployment--a combined capability unavailable in the private sector
that will enable research and assessment to be carried out with greater
accuracy and cost efficiency. NOAA also took delivery from the Navy of
a ``retired'' P-3 aircraft in response to the hurricane supplemental
bill attached to the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations
legislation. Rehabilitation of the P-3 is expected to be completed by
the start of the 2008 hurricane season.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorized
Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) in December, 2006, and it was signed into law by
President Bush on January 12, 2007. The MSA is the guiding legislation
that authorizes fishery management activities in federal waters.
Enactment of this bill was one of the top priorities of the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan. The reauthorized MSA strengthens NOAA's ability to end
overfishing, rebuild fish stocks, and work collaboratively on
conservation.
U.S. Tsunami Warning System Improved
NOAA designed easy to deploy Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of
Tsunamis (DART)-II technology, which provides two-way communication
between the buoys and NOAA facilities. This technology allows engineers
to troubleshoot these systems from the lab and repair the systems
remotely when possible. This functionality can minimize system downtime
and save money by not requiring a ship be deployed to make minor
repairs. The U.S. Tsunami Warning Program also created tsunami impact
forecast models for nine major coastal communities, providing
information for inundation maps. With the December 11, 2006 deployment
of DART #23 in the Western Pacific Ocean, NOAA achieved initial
operating capability (IOC) of the planned expanded U.S. Tsunami Warning
Program. NOAA also achieved full 24/7 operations of the Nation's two
Tsunami Warning Centers. Plans call for the U.S. Tsunami Warning
Network to total 39 DART-II buoy stations by mid-summer 2008 (32 in the
Pacific, 7 in the Atlantic).
NOAA also continued to monitor sea height through a network of
buoys and tide gauges, collecting information critical to understanding
the time of arrival and the height of tsunami waves. In 2006, NOAA
completed the installation of eight new National Water Level
Observation Network (NWLON) stations to fill gaps in the detection
network, bringing the 2-year total to 15. The 15 stations were
installed in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. These and other new stations brought the NWLON to
200 stations by the end of calendar year 2006. In addition, NOAA
continued to upgrade the entire NWLON to real-time status by replacing
over 50 data collection platforms.
Red Tide Monitoring Protects Human Health and Coastal Economics in New
England
In the wake of the 2005 New England red tide crisis that forced the
closure of most shellfisheries in the region, NOAA provided additional
emergency funding in 2006 to provide timely and critical information to
State managers to build upon long-term research supported by the
Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Bloom, and Monitoring and
Event Response for Harmful Algal Bloom programs at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, as well as other partner institutions. In
the spring of 2006, NOAA-sponsored monitoring detected rapid
escalations of the bloom, which subsequently closed shellfisheries in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. Additional NOAA efforts allowed
New England managers to make more strategic sampling and shellfish bed
closures/openings to protect human health and minimize the economic
impacts of harmful algal blooms.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System Adds 27th Reserve
On May 6, 2006, commerce and congressional officials dedicated the
newest site in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System in Port
Aransas, Texas, bring the total to 27 reserves. This new reserve
introduces a new biogeographic area type into the system, and adds
185,708 acres of public and private land and water. The reserves are
Federal-State partnerships, where NOAA provides national program
guidance and operational funding. These reserves serve as living
laboratories for scientists and provide science-based educational
programs for students and the public.
Wide Application Potential of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Demonstrated
In 2006, NOAA worked with federal and private sector partners to
successfully demonstrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) technology.
NOAA is interested in UAS as a tool to explore and gather data to help
us reach new heights in our ability to understand and predict the world
in which we live. Use of UAS could help NOAA achieve our mission goals
and provide cost-effective means to: enforce regulations over NOAA's
National Marine Sanctuaries, conduct long endurance flights for
weather, conduct research over areas that pose significant risks to
pilots, validate satellite measurements, provide counts of marine
mammal populations, monitor atmospheric composition and climate, and
hover above hurricanes and gather critical data for input into
hurricane models. NOAA will continue to examine how UAS can assist in
the collection of environmental data.
Protecting Habitat Essential to Fish
In 2006, over 500,000 square miles of U.S. Pacific Ocean habitats
were protected from damage by fishing practices, particularly bottom-
trawling. Combined, these areas are more than three times the size of
all U.S. national parks. The historic protections, implemented by NOAA
with the support and advice of the regional fishery management
councils, fishing industry, and environmental groups, made the
protection of essential fish habitat and deep coral and sponge
assemblages a significant part of management efforts to conserve
fisheries in the Pacific Ocean.
NOAA Continues Efforts to Assist with Gulf Coast Recovery Following
2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
In addition to providing the forecasts and immediate response
assistance in 2005, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NOAA has
continued to assist with Gulf Coast recovery efforts in fiscal year
2006.
NOAA ships and aircraft provided critical response and recovery
capabilities in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. NOAA Ship
Thomas Jefferson completed obstruction surveys in the Gulf of Mexico so
that busy ports and shipping lanes could be re-opened to traffic.
NOAA's citation aircraft flew post-storm damage assessment surveys
along the coasts of the Gulf States. This imagery was downloaded on the
NOAA website, enabling emergency managers, local officials and average
citizens to inventory damage and prioritize recovery efforts.
NOAA mounted a multi-pronged effort to address fishery-related
impacts in the Gulf of Mexico in fiscal year 2006. In August, 2006,
NOAA awarded $128 million to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission to reseed and restore oyster beds and conduct fisheries
monitoring in the Gulf. In addition, NOAA Ship Nancy Foster conducted a
seafood contamination survey for NOAA Fisheries near the Mississippi
Delta to spot potential safety issues. This research monitored the
seafood coming in from the Gulf to ensure it was safe for public
consumption (free of PCBs, pesticides, and fossil fuels).
Collaboration Enables a NOAA Weather Radio to be Placed In Every Public
School in America
NOAA and the Departments of Homeland Security and Education worked
to get 97,000 NOAA weather radios placed in every public school in
America to aid in protecting our children from hazards, both natural
and man-made. In many cases, local weather forecast office staff
provided expertise in programming the radios to select specific hazards
and geographic areas for which the school wanted to be alerted. This
multi-month effort required close collaboration between the Departments
of Homeland Security, Education, and Commerce (NOAA). This effort
enabled schools to connect to part of the Nation's Emergency Alert
System and greatly increases environmental situational awareness and
public safety.
World Ocean Database 2005
NOAA's National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) released a major
upgrade to its World Ocean Database product. World Ocean Database 2005
(WOD05) is the largest collection of quality-controlled ocean profile
data available internationally without restriction. All data are
available on-line for public use. Data are available for 29 ocean
variables, including plankton data. The database includes an additional
900,000 temperature profiles not available in its predecessor. The
database provides the ocean and climate science communities with
research-quality ocean profile data sets that will be useful in
describing physical, chemical and biological parameters in the ocean,
over both time and space. This database is a crucial part of the
Integrated Ocean Observing System and the Global Earth Observation
System of Systems.
New Arctic Observatory Established for Long-Term Climate Measurements
NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, in
conjunction with our Canadian counterparts, established a research site
located on Ellesmere Island to make long-term climate measurements of
Arctic clouds and aerosols. This observatory supports NOAA's activities
for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year.
NOAA Scientists Identify Carbon Dioxide Threats to Marine Life
A report co-authored by NOAA research scientists documents how
carbon dioxide is dramatically altering ocean chemistry and threatening
the health of marine organisms. The research also uncovered new
evidence of ocean acidification in the North Pacific. The report
resulted from a workshop sponsored by NOAA, the National Science
Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
First Operational Satellite Products for Ocean Biology
In June, 2006, NOAA began to process and distribute ocean biology
products for U.S. coastal waters, using satellite observations. This
activity represents a successful transition of NASA research to NOAA
operations. These products (e.g. chlorophyll concentration) represent
the first satellite-derived biological products generated by NOAA for
coastal and open ocean waters. These products are useful in detecting
and monitoring harmful algal blooms, assessing regional water quality,
and locating suitable habitat for fish and other important marine
species. Development of these products prepares NOAA for generating and
distributing ocean biology products in the global ocean after 2010.
fiscal year 2008 budget request highlights
Supporting the U.S. Ocean Action Plan
Coastal and marine waters help support over 28 million jobs, and
the value of the ocean economy to the United States is over $115
billion. The commercial and recreational fishing industries alone add
over $48 billion to the national economy each year. The fiscal year
2008 President's budget requests $123 million in increases for NOAA to
support the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan. This oceans initiative
includes $38 million to protect and restore marine and coastal areas,
$25 million to ensure sustainable use of ocean resources, and $60
million to advance ocean science and research.
New investments in ocean science are aimed at monitoring and better
understanding marine ecosystems. Increased funding of $16 million is
included for the Integrated Ocean Observing System to enhance models
and information products through development of regional systems and
improved data management and communications. A total increase of $20
million is provided for NOAA research on four near-term priorities
established through the national Ocean Research Priorities Plan. An
additional $8 million will support exploring and defining areas of the
continental shelf that are adjacent to, but currently outside of, U.S.
jurisdiction. This work will enable a U.S. claim to these areas and the
potential $1.2 trillion worth of resources they are estimated to
contain.
The fiscal year 2008 President's budget builds on NOAA's strong
record of investing in projects that embody the spirit of cooperative
conservation. Projects to protect and restore valuable marine and
coastal areas include funding of $8 million for enforcement and
management activities in the recently designated Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands Marine National Monument, and $10 million for a project to
restore nearly 1,000 stream miles of habitat for endangered Atlantic
salmon and other fish species. A total of $15 million is provided for
the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, to assist State
and local partners in the purchase of high priority coastal or
estuarine lands or conservation easements. Increased funding of $3
million is also included to support Klamath River salmon recovery
projects. Finally, an increase of $5 million will support competitive
grant programs focused on the Gulf of Mexico Alliance coastal resource
priorities, as identified in the Governors' Action Plan for Healthy and
Resilient Coasts.
Finally, the fiscal year 2008 NOAA budget provides support to
ensure sustainable access to seafood through development of offshore
aquaculture and better management of fish harvests. The administration
will propose legislation to establish clear regulatory authority and
permitting processes for offshore aquaculture. An increase of $3
million is included to establish the regulatory framework to encourage
and facilitate development of environmentally sustainable commercial
opportunities. In addition, $20 million in increases are provided to
improve management of fish harvests, including $6.5 million in
increases to implement the new and expanded requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization
Act of 2006, $3 million for observer programs, and $6 million for
market-based approaches to fisheries management. Market-based
approaches--such as Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) that
provide exclusive privileges to harvest a quantity of fish--move
fisheries management away from cumbersome and inefficient regulatory
practices and have been shown to lead to lengthened fishing seasons,
improved product quality, and safer conditions for fishermen. The
administration has set a goal of doubling the number of LAPPs in use by
the year 2010, and the increased funding of $6 million for LAPPs in
this request supports that goal. Finally, an additional $2 million in
funding is provided to meet the management challenges of assessing and
mitigating the impacts of sound from human activities, such as national
defense readiness and energy exploration and development, on marine
mammals.
Sustaining Critical Operations
As always, I support NOAA's employees by requesting adequate
funding for our people, infrastructure, and facilities. NOAA's core
values are science, service, and stewardship, as well as people,
ingenuity, integrity, excellence, and teamwork. Our ability to serve
the Nation and accomplish the missions outlined below is determined by
the quality of our people and the tools they employ. Our facilities,
ships, aircraft, environmental satellites, data-processing systems,
computing and communications systems, and our approach to management
provide the foundation of support for all of our programs.
Approximately $54.6 million in net increases will support our workforce
inflation factors, including $44.9 million for salaries and benefits
and $6.6 million for non-labor related adjustments such as fuel costs.
This year, we focus on the operations and maintenance of NOAA
vessels and necessary enhancements to marine safety, facility repair,
and modernization. A funding increase of $8.3 million will be used to
support marine operations and equipment, including $5.6 million for new
vessel operations and maintenance and $1.7 million to implement a more
effective maritime staff rotation and safety enhancements. This funding
will support the operations maintenance for the Okeanos Explorer,
NOAA's first dedicated ocean exploration vessel. Increased funding of
$5.5 million will support operations and maintenance for NOAA's third
P-3 aircraft. NOAA is also moving forward this year with increases in
funding for unmanned vehicles, with $0.7 million in support of
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) and an increase of $3 million in
funding to support the further use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).
With this increase, NOAA will evaluate the benefits and potential of
using UAS to collect data crucial for climate models, weather research,
fisheries enforcement, and coastal zone studies.
The backbone of the NOAA infrastructure is our integrated Earth
observation effort. NOAA, NASA and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) serve as the lead agencies for the Federal Government in
developing our U.S. integrated Earth observing strategy. In addition, I
serve as one of four intergovernmental co-chairs of the effort to
develop the Global Earth Observation System of Systems. Building and
maintaining state of the art satellite programs is an important
component of NOAA's integrated observation efforts. An increase of $25
million in the Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) program
continues support for development and acquisition of polar-orbiting
weather satellites to improve weather forecasting and our understanding
of the climate. This increase will allow NOAA to complete acquisition
of this series of polar satellites and install and maintain instruments
important to U.S. Government interests on the European MetOp partner
satellite. Following the completion of the POES program, it will be
replaced by the tri-agency National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). This transition is expected in
2013. We will continue to partner with the Europeans on their MetOp
satellite as NPOESS replaces our current POES satellites.
Improving Weather Warnings and Forecasts
Severe weather events cause $11 billion in damages and
approximately 7,000 weather-related fatalities yearly in the United
States. Nearly one-third of the economy is sensitive to weather and
climate. Realizing this, NOAA seeks to provide decisionmakers with key
observations, analyses, predictions, and warnings for a variety of
weather and water conditions to help protect the health, lives, and
property of the United States and enhance its economy. Increased
funding of $2 million will accelerate research to improve hurricane
intensity forecasts through targeted research for new models and
observations. Another $3 million will support the operations and
maintenance of 15 hurricane data buoys in the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean. Finally, NOAA continues to strengthen
the U.S. Tsunami Warning Program with an increase of $1.7 million to
deploy additional deep ocean buoy (DART) stations. Strengthening the
U.S. Tsunami Warning Program provides effective, community-based
tsunami hazard mitigation actions including required inundation flood
mapping, modeling, forecasting efforts and evacuation mapping, and
community-based public education/awareness/preparedness for all U.S.
communities at risk.
Climate Monitoring and Research
Society exists in a highly variable climate system, and major
climatic events can impose serious consequences on society. The fiscal
year 2008 budget request contains investments in several programs aimed
at increasing our predictive capability, enabling NOAA to provide our
customers (farmers, utilities, land managers, weather risk industry,
fisheries resource managers and decisionmakers) with assessments of
current and future impacts of climate events such as droughts, floods,
and trends in extreme climate events. NOAA is building a suite of
information, products and services to enable society to understand,
predict, and respond to changing climate conditions. These activities
are part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and are being
conducted in collaboration and coordination with our important
interagency partners including NASA, NSF, and the Department of Energy.
We will continue to expand and improve access to global oceanic and
atmospheric data sets for improved climate prediction and development
of climate change indicators. NOAA will support the critical National
Integrated Drought Information System with increases of $4.4 million to
develop an integrated drought early warning and forecast system to
provide earlier and more accurate forecasts of drought conditions. This
request also supports the administration's efforts to create a U.S.
Integrated Earth Observation System. With an increase of $0.9 million,
we will support research on water vapor to refine climate models. In
support of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan, NOAA will enhance our
understanding of the link between ocean currents and rapid climate
change with an increase of $5 million in support of research on this
topic. Finally, an additional $1 million in funding will provide
additional computational support for assessing abrupt climate change.
Critical Facilities Investments
The fiscal year 2008 President's budget request also includes
important increases for critical facilities, necessary to provide a
safe and effective working environment for NOAA's employees.
Of particular importance this year is the $3 million funding
increase to begin design of a replacement facility at the La Jolla
Southwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA is also requesting $20.3
million for continued construction of the new Pacific Region Center on
Ford Island in Honolulu, Hawaii. This increase in funding will allow
NOAA to complete the exterior renovation of one of the Ford Island
buildings, a crucial next step in the construction process.
conclusion
NOAA's fiscal year 2008 budget request provides essential new
investments in our priority areas while maintaining critical services,
reflecting NOAA's vision, mission, and core values. The work NOAA
accomplished in 2006 impacted every U.S. citizen. We will build on our
successes from last year, and stand ready to meet the challenges that
will surface in fiscal year 2008 and beyond. NOAA is dedicated to
enhancing economic security and national safety through research and
accurate prediction of weather and climate-related events, and to
providing environmental stewardship of our Nation's coastal and marine
resources. That concludes my statement, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
the opportunity to present NOAA's fiscal year 2008 budget request. I am
happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Yes, thank you, Chairman Mikulski, Senator
Shelby, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Reed. I am pleased to
present the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget for the
next fiscal year. Before I begin, however, I must express my
heartfelt appreciation for your support of NSF's research
budget in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution.
The President's request for NSF is $6.43 billion for fiscal
year 2008. This represents a $513 million or 8.7 percent
increase over the continuing resolution. Funding at this level
will keep NSF on a course set by the President's American
competitiveness initiative to drive innovation and sharpen
America's competitive edge.
Let me just quickly highlight some of the activities we are
emphasizing in the new budget. As the lead agency supporting
polar research, NSF will invest $59 million for international
polar year (IPY) activities. Climate change research and
environmental observations will be a major focus of
investigation. The outlines of environmental change from sea
ice extent and retreating glaciers to shifting patterns in
flora and fauna are already visible in the polar regions, with
implications for the rest of the globe. Another research effort
will be to explore how life adapts to and survives in the polar
extremes. Other major thrusts during IPY will be education and
outreach activities.
The budget includes an important new NSF-wide investment of
$52 million to develop a next generation of computationally
based discovery concepts and tools to deal with complex, data
rich, and interacting systems. Cyber-enabled discovery and
innovation aims to explore radically new concepts, approaches
and tools at the intersection of computational and physical or
biological worlds to address such challenges.
Understanding how human activity interacts with the oceans
can help ensure that the world's oceans remain clean, healthy,
productive, and stable. NSF will invest $17 million in four
research areas identified in the ocean research priorities plan
as critical near-term priorities, the complex dynamics that
control and regulate marine ecosystem processes, variability of
Atlantic Ocean currents, the response of coastal ecosystems to
a variety of natural events and human influence processes and
the development of new sensors for marine ecosystems.
Our request also includes $390 million for nano-technology
research. NSF's investment in the interagency national nano-
technology initiative will increase by nearly $17 million. We
will increase our multidisciplinary and interagency regulatory
support efforts that address the environmental health and
safety impacts of nano materials by exploring how nano
particles and materials interact with the living world at all
scales.
NSF will increase support by $8 million for the
experimental program to stimulate competitive research
(EPSCoR). EPSCoR investments provide strategic programs and
opportunities for participants in States that have historically
received less Federal R&D funding to make sustainable
improvements in research capacity and national research
competitiveness.
We moved EPSCoR to the Office of the Director in order to
focus on the research potential and capacity of these States
and to integrate this activity across NSF.
Creating a strong science and engineering workforce for the
future is vital to maintaining the Nation's competitive edge.
NSF will continue to fund a broad portfolio of successful
programs that contribute to this goal: CAREER, aimed at junior
faculty, advanced technological education aimed at 2 year
colleges, Noyce Scholarships for promoting the development of a
world-class math and science teaching corp and programs which
aim to broaden participation of underrepresented groups and
engage a broader spectrum of institutions such as the STEM
Talent Expansion Program and Centers for Research Excellence in
Science and Technology.
We will fund an additional 200 graduate research
fellowships, increasing the total number of students supported
to nearly 3,000.
In coordination with the Department of Education, NSF will
continue funding for the highly successful Math and Science
Partnership Program aimed at improving K to 12 science and math
education and teaching. In addition to supporting ongoing
awards, approximately $30 million will be available for new
awards in fiscal year 2008.
Scientists, engineers, and students need world-class
instruments with the best capabilities, the farthest reach, and
the finest accuracy. NSF proposes an investment of $32.75
million to initiate advanced LIGO, a gravitational wave
observatory that will improve detection rates by a factor of
1,000 over current Earth-based facilities. Observations made
with this instrument could revolutionize our understanding of
the universe.
The development of a petascale computing capability and
world-class cyber-infrastructure will continue to be a high
priority. These investments will significantly augment
computational and networking capabilities available to
scientists and engineers in all disciplines.
The Foundation strategy for research and education must be
to keep all fields and disciplines of science and engineering
healthy and strong. At the same time, we must be constantly
alert to research that has the potential to transform the
world. This is the kind of research that can overturn accepted
paradigms and open entirely new fields for exploration.
The National Science Foundation looks to the future with
these important considerations in mind and we have crafted our
fiscal year 2008 budget to address them.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present a
brief overview of our request and I look forward to any
questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Chairman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and members of the committee, I
am pleased to present the National Science Foundation's budget for the
next fiscal year. Before I begin, I must express my heartfelt
appreciation for your support of NSF's research budget in the Fiscal
Year 2007 Continuing Resolution.
The President's request for NSF is $6.43 billion for fiscal year
2008. This represents a $513 million or 8.7 percent increase over the
continuing resolution. Funding at this level will keep NSF on the
course set by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative to
drive innovation and sharpen America's competitive edge.
Let me just quickly highlight some of the activities we are
emphasizing in the new budget. As the lead agency supporting polar
research, NSF will invest $59 million for International Polar Year
activities. Climate change research and environmental observations will
be a major focus of investigation. The outlines of environmental
change, from sea ice extent and retreating glaciers, to shifting
patterns in flora and fauna, are already visible in the polar regions,
with implications for the rest of the globe. Another research effort
will be to explore how life adapts to and survives in the polar
extremes. Other major thrusts during IPY will be in education and
outreach activities.
The budget includes an important new NSF-wide investment of $52
million to develop a new generation of computationally based discovery
concepts and tools to deal with complex, data-rich, and interacting
systems. Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation aims to explore
radically new concepts, approaches, and tools at the intersection of
computational and physical or biological worlds to address such
challenges.
Understanding how human activity interacts with the oceans can help
ensure that the world's oceans remain clean, healthy, productive, and
stable. NSF will invest $17 million in four research areas identified
in the Ocean Research Priorities Plan as critical near-term priorities:
the complex dynamics that control and regulate marine ecosystem
processes; variability of Atlantic Ocean currents; the response of
coastal ecosystems to a variety of natural events and human influenced
processes; and the development of new sensors for marine ecosystems.
Our request also includes $390 million for nanotechnology research.
NSF's investment in the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative
will increase by nearly $17 million. We will increase our
multidisciplinary and interagency regulatory support efforts that
address the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanomaterials
by exploring how nano particles and materials interact with the living
world at all scales.
NSF will increase support by $8 million for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). EPSCoR investments
provide strategic programs and opportunities for participants--
jurisdictions and States that have historically received less Federal
R&D funding--to make sustainable improvements in research capacity and
national research competitiveness. We moved EPSCoR to the Office of the
Director in order to focus on the research potential and capacity of
these States and to integrate this activity across NSF.
Creating a strong science and engineering workforce for the future
is vital to maintaining the Nation's competitive edge. NSF will
continue to fund a broad portfolio of successful programs that
contribute to this goal: CAREER, aimed at junior faculty; Advanced
Technological Education, aimed at 2-year colleges; Noyce Scholarships,
for promoting the development of a world-class math and science
teaching corps; and programs which aim to broaden participation of
underrepresented groups and engage a broader spectrum of institutions,
such as the STEM Talent Expansion Program and Centers for Research
Excellence in Science and Technology. We will fund an additional 200
Graduate Research Fellowships, increasing the total number of students
supported to nearly 3,000.
In coordination with the Department of Education, NSF will continue
funding for the highly successful Math and Science Partnership program,
aimed at improving K-12 science and math education and teaching. In
addition to supporting ongoing awards, approximately $30 million will
be available for new awards in fiscal year 2008.
Scientists, engineers, and students need world-class instruments
with the best capabilities, the farthest reach, and the finest
accuracy. NSF proposes an investment of $32.75 million to initiate
Advanced LIGO, a gravitational wave observatory that will improve
detection rates by a factor of 1,000 over current earth-based
facilities. Observations made with this instrument could revolutionize
our understanding of the universe.
The development of a petascale computing capability and world-class
cyber-infrastructure will continue to be a high priority. These
investments will significantly augment computational and networking
capabilities available to scientists and engineers in all disciplines.
The foundation's strategy for research and education must be to
keep all fields and disciplines of science and engineering healthy and
strong. At the same time, we must be constantly alert to research that
has the potential to transform the world. This is the kind of research
that can overturn accepted paradigms and open entirely new fields for
exploration. The National Science Foundation looks to the future with
these important considerations in mind, and we have crafted our fiscal
year 2008 budget to address them.
Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present a brief
overview of our request. I look forward any questions you might have.
NOAA deg.NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
TSUNAMI WARNING PROGRAM
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much for your excellent
testimony. I'm going to get right to a couple of the questions
that I know are pressing in my mind and one is the whole idea--
I know of the--kind of the mantra, if you will, of NOAA, saving
lives and saving livelihoods. I just want to note the early
part of your testimony about early warning for weather. The
school alerts. Admiral, I think this is an example of what NOAA
develops, works with the private sector then with the larger
public sector, truly that develops products, creates jobs, and
saves lives and saves livelihoods.
My question then to you is, I'd like to go right to weather
warning systems. In this year's budget, you have a set of
requests for ensuring the tsunami warning system. We all note
when the terrible tsunami hit Indonesia and other parts of the
Pacific, the world was alarmed and wondered what it would mean
to Hawaii, to other places in the Pacific rim. Could you tell
us the status of where you are on the tsunami warning and could
you also tell us where we are in terms of having enough
resources to implement that because this Pacific is pretty big
and what about, also the east coast?
NOAA deg.TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, thank you. I'd be happy to.
First of all, it's a result of the request that we turned in,
the strong support of Congress to provide the money and the
authorization for us to do this work. We have right now in
place 25 deep-water buoys that are spaced around the Pacific
and into the South Pacific as well as the Atlantic and the
Caribbean area to provide warnings for the gulf coast and east
coast.
So that represents an increase from 6 to 25. We had six
experimental buoys in the water at the time of the Indonesian
earthquake, buoys off of Alaska and off of the Aleutian Islands
and off of the west coast. We now have 25 of these deepwater
buoys to protect us from all directions. Thanks to funding from
Congress, we also have 24 by 7 coverage, so we have people on
duty at the warning centers around the clock that provide those
warnings. We are equipped today to provide the warnings to the
Atlantic, to the Pacific and Pacific rim and we now have, from
our international efforts, a buoy in the Indian Ocean and we
are working to provide the coverage for the Indian Ocean for a
worldwide system. We're also building more interest, I think,
from communities to become tsunami ready. We've had 10 to 20
new communities join that program.
Senator Mikulski. Do you have enough? In looking at this
year's appropriations to keep the tsunami program on track?
Admiral Lautenbacher. We do. If we are allowed the increase
of the $1.7 million, that will provide us the ability to
complete the program and to maintain the continuity of it into
the future.
NOAA deg.SUSQUEHANNA BASIN MONITORING SYSTEM
Senator Mikulski. Something that is very important to us in
the Northeast, is the Susquehanna River Basin, which stretches
from upstate New York, goes through Pennsylvania, touches a bit
on Delaware but mostly New York and Pennsylvania and comes into
Maryland and converges at a place at Port Depost, that without
this Susquehanna warning system, could have tremendous loss of
lives and an inability to manage it. I understand that the
Susquehanna Basin monitoring system needs upgrading but it is
never included in the budget. Can you tell me where we are on
that and we do know it needs to be modernized. It was
originally put into play in the 1960s and technology has
changed and the weather has gotten more severe.
Admiral Lautenbacher. It does need to be modernized. We
work with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to try to
ensure that there is funding in those areas. Many of our
systems need improvement for monitoring of streams. We have
some programs to improve the technological capability of these
monitoring stations. Our AHPS Program, which is the advanced
hydrological prediction system, makes use of these gauges so
we've made some increases but more remains to be done in that
regard.
Senator Mikulski. I would really like, as part of the
excellent work that you're already doing, to include funding
for this. We're talking about maybe $2 or $3 million that
impact four States and billions of dollars of private property
and impacting also on Aberdeen Proving Ground. And I would
really like you to take a look at that as we move through this
and look ahead.
NOAA deg.NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Let me get then to the whole issue of climate change,
studying our planet and also the oceans. The National Academy
of Sciences has issued a report encouraging that NASA and NOAA
sign a memorandum of agreement and follow about 17 different
projects to really coordinate and have a synergistic leveraging
effect on Earth science and encourage this. Have you had a
chance to review this document? Your reaction to this document?
Where is this heading with Dr. Griffin and where would this be
in this budget because again, following the reports of a
National Academy, which means it has been peer reviewed
recommendations. It's not what anyone of us wants but it seems
like it would really leverage what we need to know and play a
major role in climate change.
Admiral Lautenbacher. It's a very important study and it
was one that was chartered and supported, obviously, by NASA
and NOAA. I have read the report. I agree with the thrust of
the report. Right now, both within NOAA and NASA, we are going
through the detailed recommendations and looking at ways that
we can bring them into effect. It's an important study for us,
for both agencies. I have talked with Dr. Griffin about it and
we take it very seriously. It did not come out in time to
affect the fiscal year 2008 budget but it is going to be an
important factor as we go through this year developing it.
Senator Mikulski. Well, NASA itself is under tremendous
stress, as my colleagues here at the table would attest to,
from exploration, completing the space station as well as
science and we work very closely together but in order to
leverage every nickel from every agency, to accomplish a
science budget, I think it's really important that NOAA and
NASA will get at how they can literally leverage each other,
particularly in the science area, while we look at completing
the very important responsibilities for this station and a crew
return vehicle. So we've got a lot here that we're juggling,
including my time.
I have other questions. We haven't forgotten the NSF. It
shows you how important this hearing is. Senator Shelby, I'll
turn to you.
NOAA deg.AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As I mentioned
in my opening statement, Admiral, I'm concerned that NOAA was
noticeably excluded from the American competitive initiative,
the ACI program. NOAA stands out as an international leader in
marine and atmospheric science. We all know that and it's in
line with other advanced science agencies that are part of ACI.
Admiral, from what you know of ACI and I think it's a lot, what
aspects of NOAA do you feel have the potential to be part of
this innovative program?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I thank you, Senator Shelby. I think
that we are part of the American competitiveness initiative.
Obviously, not in the funding arena as most people know----
Senator Shelby. Well, you are and you're not but go ahead.
Admiral Lautenbacher. We are and we're not and the issue
was to talk about basic research. NOAA doesn't have a
definition of basic research so there is an issue with that.
But we do have a substantial and very important R&D budget of
around $500 million, depending on what categories you use and
we are absolutely essential for the competitiveness of our
economy. As I pointed out, one-third of our GDP depends on the
kinds of environmental information that make our country
competitive in a variety of industries.
We have looked very carefully at things like aquaculture.
Here's an area where we need to be innovative. We are, in fact,
going to try to partner with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), to leverage some of the money
that is in that budget because an $8 billion trade deficit is
an important area of our economy so we are looking to try to
provide more innovation in building the kinds of tools for
sustainable aquaculture, for doing it in an environmentally
sensitive way. We're looking at trying to be innovative, given
the importance of the satellites.
We have taken the newest instruments that NASA has
developed and have figured out how to assimilate them into our
weather models and our climate models so we're getting right on
the front edge of research to ensure that it provides benefit
for the country. We are asking this year to experiment and use
unmanned aircraft to help us gain more information. The Arctic
is a region that would be very useful for us to work in with
these kinds of instruments and certainly, severe weather.
Hurricanes, storms at sea and that sort of thing. Phased array
radar--as we talked about trying to increase the warning times.
Remember that in 1985, our warning time for tornadoes was
negative. It was minus 2 minutes to warn people about
tornadoes. Today, it's an average of 13 minutes or so and the
Enterprise, Alabama tornado was a warning time of about 18
minutes. That's because of the technology innovation that has
been created from our research.
We're looking now towards dual polarization radar systems
that will help improve that warning time and in the future, we
have a program for phased array radars. These are the radars
that the Navy has on their ships at sea, which could double for
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) types of radars as well
as allow us to gain significant advantage in the warning time
that may save more lives. So those are a few of the things that
we're working on and there are many others, Senator. Thank you
for the question.
NSF deg.NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Senator Shelby. Dr. Bement, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, the ACI provides substantial dollars on the research
side of the National Science Foundation (NSF), yet hardly
touches the education efforts at NSF. One of the goals of the
ACI as well as the Augustine report, is to develop a sustained
pipeline of highly trained U.S. students in scientific fields.
You're very aware of this. I'm disappointed that the potential
for educating our students to be the scientists and engineers
of the future has not been a highlight of NSF's portion of the
ACI. Can you take this opportunity here today to talk about the
program, such as the math and science partnerships, HBCU and
other K through 12 programs where NSF can achieve the goals our
country needs to stay on the cutting edge and remain
competitive?
Dr. Bement. Thank you for that question, Senator Shelby.
Obviously I feel very strongly about education because
educating the workforce of the 21st century is a major goal of
the ACI.
Senator Shelby. It's the key to our survival economically
and our standard of living, isn't it?
Dr. Bement. Absolutely. And you know, throughout all of our
programs, even our research programs, we include education
components, because those who do the research are graduate
students who eventually move into the private sector or
academia and become the leaders of our innovation system. So
it's critically important and we try to keep our program in
balance at all levels, K to 12, undergraduate and graduate
education. The 2008 request was structured at the time that the
Academic Competitiveness Council was formed in response to the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the sense of that legislation
was that programs should be increased on the basis of rigorous
evaluation and evidence that they were meeting their goals.
All of our programs are evaluated. Some were evaluated at
the time the budget was formulated. Some are scheduled for
evaluation this year and next year. You'll note in our budget
that the programs that had been shown effective were plus-ed up
significantly by 10 percent or more. There were some that were
flat funded, pending evaluation this year and next and
hopefully those budgets will increase after they are shown to
be effective.
NOAA deg.NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
DISASTER RESPONSE CENTERS
Senator Shelby. In recent years, NOAA has greatly improved,
as we know, the timeliness of severe weather warnings. You just
mentioned this and I think you will continue to make progress
there. It saves lives. Yet despite this warning, many lives are
still lost as we know this last week. Effectively safeguarding
our citizens from natural disasters involves more than just
improving warning times. It requires better education, better
planning, better infrastructure, and better emergency response.
Does it not? I will--you said yes, didn't you?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Last year, NOAA explored the viability of
having a Disaster Response Center on the gulf coast, a NOAA
center that can effectively respond to weather and marine
disasters as well as serve as a focal point for innovative
research that prevents future storms from inflicting such
deadly results in the gulf. I think it is necessary. In your
opinion, what would such a gulf center need to effectively meet
the full spectrum needs of mitigating disaster response before,
during, and after these weather events? Because they will
occur.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. They will occur. And we
found out that we didn't have a really coordinated response
effort to Katrina. I'm very proud of what we did in the gulf in
restoring and providing our services down there but the object
of having a node that is in the area that has a trained staff,
that has the kind of the facilities that are available in an
area that is close enough to bring them together.
Senator Shelby. Does that make a lot of sense?
Admiral Lautenbacher. It makes a lot of sense and we are
working on regional types of initiatives within NOAA and this
region would be obviously very critical to us.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Excellent point. Senator Reed, from an
ocean State?
NOAA deg.REGIONAL FISHERIES COUNCIL
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and let
me first thank Admiral Lautenbacher for the decision by NOAA to
evaluate Rhode Island for the home port for the Okeanos
Explorer, which is a ship that will be, I think, very, very
useful in terms of your mission and also for the proposed
increase in funding for ocean exploration in this budget. Thank
you very much.
Let me turn, Admiral, to a question about the Regional
Fisheries Council. Since 1977, the budgets for these councils
increased about 25 percent whereas the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) budget went up about 225 percent.
We're asking the councils to do more and more with the Magnuson
Act reauthorization. Could you tell if there is going to be a
funding increase in this budget for regional fisheries
councils?
Admiral Lautenbacher. There is an increase and it is a
modest increase based on the increment that I was able to get
for the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization, so part of the
funding that we've talked about there is going to improve the
science, and the support that each of these fishery management
councils must use to meet the requirements of this bill. It's
important to us to maintain fishery councils that are capable
of doing the work.
Senator Reed. It seems that they have more responsibilities
but the resources aren't concomitant with that responsibility,
is that fair?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I would say that it has been
difficult over the years, to keep pace with the increasing
administrative and scientific requirements. I'm very sensitive
to it and would like to do more in that area.
NOAA deg.NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SEA
GRANT PROGRAM
Senator Reed. Thank you. The NOAA Sea Grant Program, for
years, has been the mainstay of a great deal of research. In
fact, I think at the University of Rhode Island is one of your
largest programs and the program took a significant cut in
fiscal year 2006 and the President's budget this year is simply
a repeat, about $55 million. With increased discussion of ocean
research, hurricane effects, tidal issues, all these things,
why can't we do more with respect to sea grant funding?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, quite frankly, I would like to
see a larger sea grant budget. We were very sensitive to the
congressional compromise, I guess, at the level that we have
today so I'd like to keep working on trying to build the sea
grant budget but looking at the lay of the land and the
priorities and what would be supported at levels we have today,
continuing the congressional appropriated level was felt to be
the best approach, given the resources that we have.
Senator Reed. Now, one following question--I understand
National Marine Fisheries Service put out a request for funding
proposals for research and those proposals were presented--at
least offered to sea grant programs but I understand they are
being offered to consulting firms instead of the sea grant
programs. Is there a reason why the sea grant program wasn't
used?
Admiral Lautenbacher. NOAA offers numerous funding
opportunities that directly relate to our core mission,
including grants for cooperative research. In June and December
2006, NOAA published in the Federal Register Omnibus notices of
consolidated sources of program and application information
related to its competitive grant and cooperative agreement
award offerings for fiscal year 2007. In addition, in February
2007 NOAA augmented the Omnibus notices by publishing in the
Federal Register a Broad Area Announcement (BAA) to request
proposals for special projects and programs associated with the
agency's strategic plan and mission goals as a mechanism to
encourage research, technical projects, or sponsorships that
are not normally funded through our competitive discretionary
programs. While each grants program has specific guidelines
regarding eligibility, in general, researchers at Sea Grant
colleges are free to compete for NOAA funding.
NSF deg.EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH
Senator Reed. Thank you, sir. Dr. Bement, thank you for
your testimony and for your leadership and you mentioned
EPSCoR--that's to us a very important program. We fought hard
to get EPSCoR into Rhode Island and the thought was and I think
the theory is that EPSCoR would allow a much more active
participation in the national research funds of NSF.
It seems, however, that the NSF distribution of research
funds has changed little over 25 years, that there are States
that continue to have a lion's share and then many other States
are still at 10 percent or less. In fact, one-half the States
are 10 percent or less of the funding and my sense was when
EPSCoR was rolled out, it was to give you a big footprint all
across the country and not just to particular areas of
research. So are you evaluating ways in which every State can
participate more aggressively in the NSF funding through
EPSCoR?
Dr. Bement. Yes, we are, Senator Reed. I should point out
that I felt that EPSCoR could be more strategic, more
effective, so we moved the EPSCoR office into the Office of the
Director and the reason that EPSCoR serves and interacts with
all the divisions and all the research offices in the
Foundation. So it provides much closer coordination through the
NSF senior management team, not just rely on the base funding
for EPSCoR, which is largely through the research
infrastructure improvement program, but to use those
improvements to be more effective in addressing the rest of our
research budget, which is the $4.8 billion part.
We will be looking at the strategic initiatives to do that
and we did have a workshop just last year where we brought the
leadership from EPSCoR to the Foundation and they developed
their report for ``EPSCoR 2020''. So that report is informing
us on some of the initiatives, but we'll go beyond that report
as well.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Doctor and it's an
important program and I encourage you to keep looking at in
strategic dimensions. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.
NOAA deg.WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
think we have discussed a lot in the area of hurricane
notification and certainly better timing of notification of
hurricanes and violent storms; but in the last Congress, I
tried very hard to work with NOAA on weather modification
research and NOAA, frankly, blew me off, honestly--didn't care
about it, didn't want it. They suggested that we go to the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White
House. OSTP didn't really want it either. My question is, am I
missing something? Why wouldn't we want, in addition to knowing
in a timely manner, how we protect against these violent
weather storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes, why wouldn't we
study if there are ways to modify these types of occurrences
and do the research on weather modification in how one area
affects another area, either for the better or the worse?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Certainly it's an important topic. If
you ask our meteorologists and our folks that look at the kinds
of things that we do--that we are charged to do in our
authorization bills and appropriation bills, obviously the
warning and the observation of current storms needs to take top
precedence because we can't neglect our ability to be able to
warn citizens and save lives today.
Senator Hutchison. Of course, of course.
Admiral Lautenbacher. And then the next point is that you
start looking at the maturity of weather modification as a
science and it's really in a basic phase of science. I don't
want to force it off on my colleague here, who does basic
science----
Dr. Bement. I'm glad you did.
Admiral Lautenbacher. But in all seriousness, NOAA doesn't
engage in the giving of grants that are in the experimental,
very grade level of asking fundamental questions. Those kinds
of things are done by the basic research agencies and what we
felt was that OSTP, as the head of the science enterprise for
the U.S. Government, would be in a better position to allocate,
to decide how to deal with the issue. I think it is an
important issue and certainly we did not try to blow it off at
all. I think we need to worry about it and think about it.
Other countries do and we should do it as well.
Senator Hutchison. Well, where should it go, and where will
it get thorough attention? OSTP didn't pick it up. We
couldn't--actually, they stopped the bill, to be honest. So
where should it go? Should it go to the National Science
Foundation? Is that something that would fit there? It seems to
me that it would more likely fit in NOAA but putting it in the
White House where they have so many other areas of need, didn't
seem to work either. Can either of you, Dr. Bement, can you
suggest if there is something----
Dr. Bement. Senator, there are many ways in which NSF and
NOAA collaborate closely and especially in the area of
understanding extreme weather formation, hurricanes, and
cyclonic events, and also research on climate change. We are
very much interested in how best to model the intensification
of hurricanes, and we do that very well, but also to deal with
other cyclonic behavior like tornadoes, to understand how they
form and how they propagate. It is that type of basic research
and the cyber-infrastructure that goes with modeling and
simulation that will inform us on how to mitigate these very
extreme weather events and if modification is the only means of
mitigation.
Senator Hutchison. Do you think that we could work to bring
our bill back and is there a way to bring in NSF and NOAA,
together, where I think there is more collaboration--the White
House, OSTP, doesn't really--they don't have grantmaking.
They're not on the ground studying the research and looking at
ways to better notify residents of coming storms and floods. Is
there a potential that we could work together to carve an area
where we not only look at notification, which is absolutely the
first thing, I understand, but also whether research holds
potential that we would lessen the impact of a hurricane
forming 1,000 miles out in the ocean?
Dr. Bement. Well certainly, Senator, speaking for the
National Science Foundation, we would continue to encourage
grants from the universities and colleges to do research on
that topic. We would certainly make that information available
in the open literature.
Senator Hutchison. My question is, could I work with you,
then, Dr. Bement, to try to set something up that might create
a focus there at the NSF?
Dr. Bement. I'd be delighted to work with you.
Admiral Lautenbacher. If you'd allow us, we'll work with
the Office of Science--we can work together, too, if you can
provide for----
Senator Hutchison. I think that would be helpful since you
have so much in that area.
Admiral Lautenbacher. We can continue this further than I
thought it had been.
NOAA deg.RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH
Senator Hutchison. Okay. Let's work on that. The other area
I want to quickly just ask about is, I am working on a bill now
that would establish a council on renewable energy, which would
again bring together a focus on research on renewable energy,
including wave technology and wind technology, wind energy
created in the oceans or the gulf. Do you think that we could
do something by bringing all of those entities together? My
bill actually puts in either the National Science Foundation or
the Federal Lab Consortium for Technology Transfer but do you
think that there is a potential and maybe you're already doing
it and I would like to know, on wave technology for creation of
energy and wind energy in the water as opposed to wind on land?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, we are the definer of the
resource, so to speak. We have models, wave models and we have
the National Oceanographic Data Center that produces reams of
data of interest. We don't do the actual research on the energy
devices themselves but we're a part of what needs to come
together.
Senator Hutchison. But you could provide the data on what
kind of power would be in the different parts of the----
Admiral Lautenbacher. We could tell people where--what
sorts of energies are available in different parts of our
coasts at what times of the day, et cetera, how things change.
We also do that for wind, so if you want to place a wind farm
somewhere, you can come to NOAA and see where there are winds
and what the potential capability from them is. The same thing
works for waves but the actual research on the instruments
themselves that you would use to harness the energy would be
done by the Energy Department or by some other outfits in the
academic or private sector.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. We're going to be working with the
National Science Foundation on that as well. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
NSF deg.INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR AND THE ALASKA REGION
RESEARCH VESSEL
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have noticed
that there is a $59 million request for the IPY activities in
the budget. I'm sure that you both know that great, desirable
Alaska and the Alaska Delegation that this money be used in a
way to try to bring about some understanding of the climatic
activities in Alaska and really, also the social challenges
that we face because of those changes.
We had a hearing last year on this matter and we had hopes
that these monies would be spent in that way. I don't know what
the plans are and I'd be happy to learn them.
I do hope that you will acknowledge the role that Alaska
must play in the IPY activities. I also note the President now
has a request for NSF for $42 million for the construction of a
new Alaska region research vessel. This will replace the Alpha
Helix, which is a ship that has been dedicated to science. The
replacement will literally be a floating laboratory focusing on
chemistry, biology, physics, oceanography, geology. The
President had $56 million in the 2007 budget. This year there
is $42 million. Had the first been available--this $42 million
would have completed construction on that vessel. Unfortunately
some people around here think that that is an earmark for
Alaska. It's part of the budget and I'm very disturbed at the
way it's been viewed by some people.
I also want to note that we have great hopes that NOAA will
really use some of these funds available in the President's
budget. You've got a 3.4 percent increase. I know, however,
that it is still below the enacted level for 2006 and 2007 but
we have some enormous changes taking place. One-half the fish
that we provide from domestic sources are harvested off the
North Pacific of my State and we are very fearful that the NOAA
programs that have been ongoing, including the monitoring of
sea life and research--we now have a petition to declare the
beluga whales endangered in the Cook Inlet. They are there when
the fish are there. They follow the salmon. But now we've got
lawsuits about that, too. I do think that--you mentioned the
Magnuson-Stevens Act--money--I do think that we have to
continue our protection against overfishing those areas but I
do hope that--my question for that introduction is, what are
you going to be doing about IPY and what's the situation with
regards to the ship?
Dr. Bement. Thank you very much, Senator Stevens. IPY is a
2-year activity but we hope to put in legacy systems that will
continue research over the next 50 years on some of these
global issues, including sustainability. With regard to the
State of Alaska, I have been working, and so has our Office of
Polar Programs, with the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
We've been trying to get a closer partnership with the Barrow
Climate Change Research Facility. So some of the infrastructure
elements that we'll be investing in under the International
Polar Year will be first of all, an Arctic observing network
that will be linked in with other countries involved in IPY,
and this Arctic observing network will be part of what we call
SEARCH, which is the study of environmental Arctic change, and
hopefully, will eventually be part of GEOSS, the global Earth
observing system of systems. That is a platform to build upon.
Second, we need to be able to measure climate change on a
year-round basis, not just in the summertime. At Toolik Lake,
we want to make that a year-round facility and we'll be making
investments to provide the energy and the heating requirements
to make it a year-round facility.
Third, working with NOAA on the Barrow Climate Change
Research Facility, that facility will be completed and will be
operational next year, in time for the International Polar
Year. As a result of a workshop we had approximately 1 year ago
with the University of Alaska and the Barrow Arctic Science
Consortium, we've identified a number of opportunities for
those two entities to work closely together during IPY and that
will require instrumentation of the research facility and also
connectivity to broadband communications and to the Internet.
That will give researchers at Barrow access to the University
of Alaska computing facilities as well as their technical and
scientific library capabilities. Those are a few examples of
what we have in our plan for Alaska during the IPY.
With regard to the Arctic region research vessel, that
program is going well. We had our solicitation. The proposal
that was selected turned out to be a sole proposal, from the
University of Alaska at Fairbanks. We intend the Arctic region
research vessel to be a national asset, more than just an asset
for the State of Alaska. There were some issues with the
proposal but we will work with the University of Alaska to
broaden the scope and improve the plans for managing the
project.
We hope to be able to start that project this fiscal year
and we will be requesting permission to do so in our 2007 plan.
NOAA deg.INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR PROJECTS
Admiral Lautenbacher. Well, as you're aware, the bulk of
the new IPY funding or additional funding is not within NOAA.
We are partnering with the agencies as I am with NSF to
leverage the basic research funding that is going into it. We
have $15 million associated directly with the IPY projects,
which is an increase of $1 million for new projects.
The bulk of that is in observations. We need to create, as
I know you well know, a better long-term observing system for
the Arctic. We've partnered with the Canadians to start a new
Arctic Observation Station on Ellesmere Island. We have
research crews into the Arctic with the Russians, where we are
leveraging some of their money.
We are going to continue looking at the stratosphere of
ozone measurements. We have put some money in for looking at
improved weather, sea ice, and ocean wave forecasting in the
Arctic. That's a special part of the world, as you are well
aware. That will be an important part of refining the new
information that comes out of it and using it, hopefully, to
help improve our weather and climate forecasting. We are
looking at predictions on improving arctic environment
forecasts from seasonal to centennial. So we want to get into
the climate prediction area for that part of the world.
A very important part of the data gathering is the $3.3
million we have for UAS systems, unmanned aircraft systems, a
perfect place to test and experiment with those kinds of
systems for continuous observing, is the Arctic. We plan to
look for a strong way of doing that during this IPY. Thank you,
sir.
NOAA deg.INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
Senator Stevens. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the
meeting in Anchorage of the International Whaling Commission,
for almost 25 years, through the great efforts of Sylvia Earl,
who is one of your predecessors. We've had the opportunity for
Alaska Eskimos to harvest a number of whales that they use to
consume. It's not a commercial operation. Japan now, is using
surrogates from Pacific and Caribbean Islands to try to
threaten that program unless we all support the restoration of
their commercial whaling activities, which we oppose, totally
oppose.
I hope that you use all the efforts that you can to
convince the Japanese that as far as I'm concerned, if they
insist on destroying the Eskimos ability to continue their
cultural activities and have that meat available for their
personal use because of the world's desire not to support their
commercial activities, I think this--I will lead the charge and
get some severe reaction against the nation of Japan. They're
wrong and that's a small group within their country. They
should not be doing this politically. They should not be doing
it with their Embassy group and I'm really very disturbed with
Japan to think that they believe that those 15 to 18 whales
that our people consume should be offset by commercial whaling
off their country, we've now restored the populations. They are
balanced and protected so I hope you will all help us emphasize
to Japan, this is not their day to bargain commercial whaling
against Eskimos right to survive.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. We're working very strongly
to support your position. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like
to say that the Senator from Alaska is absolutely correct.
Madam Chair, the two agencies represented here are the
guardian angels of the State of Hawaii. Hawaii, as we all know,
is rather unique, isolated. For example, we have 85 percent of
all the coral reefs in the United States. We just opened up a
140,000 square mile marine sanctuary. That's more than all the
national parks combined.
And we're counting upon NSF to save us because of the
climate change studies. You may not know this, Doctor, but as a
result of your work, real estate people are beginning to look
at whether coastal properties are just as good as mountain
properties.
Senator Inouye. The coastal properties used to be the prime
ones but now with the sea level getting up there, people are
beginning to take a second look. So what do you do? Hawaii is
very important and we're working at this moment, Madam Chair,
with the NSF on the feasibility and possibility of establishing
a major solar telescope on Mount Hale/Akala and we're pleased
with the work that NOAA does for us. For example, without NOAA
I don't think Hawaii or the rest of the world can get such fast
advance notice on tsunamis. I don't have any questions. I just
want to thank them and I thank you.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you very much, Senator.
Dr. Bement. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. Well, the Senator was absolutely right in
describing his own State. Before he arrived, we asked about the
status, particularly of the tsunami early warning system, which
I knew that you've been a real leader in establishing and
advocating with this subcommittee, regardless who was Chair.
Yes, sir?
Senator Inouye. I have one question for the National
Science Foundation. This is my third meeting this morning and I
had to attend all three. Can you devise some system for the
United States Senate where we can attend several meetings at
the same time? I go to one for 10 minutes, another one for 15
minutes and here I am and I didn't hear your testimony. I
wanted to be here in the morning, Madam Chair but----
Senator Mikulski. Well, you're here. We're very well
mindful of this.
Senator Inouye. Can you get the NSF to do this for us?
Senator Mikulski. We can put that in with Senator
Hutchison's Weather Modification Program.
Senator Inouye. I move to increase----
Senator Mikulski. We'll get a College Senate Venture
Capitol Fund.
Dr. Bement. I think, Senator, perhaps in the next 50 years,
we might be able to discover how to clone you physiologically
but I don't think we'll ever be able to clone you mentally.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, I think.
Senator Mikulski. A wrap-up here.
NOAA deg.FUNDING INCREASES FOR NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SATELLITE PROGRAM
Senator Shelby. The Senator is absolutely on point, though.
We do have to be at a lot of places at the same time and we
can't do this but we appreciate your appearance here today.
NOAA--the NOAA 2008 budget shows a decrease in overall
satellite costs. However, it is my understanding that Congress
can expect future increased budget requests for our NPOESS.
At some point, NOAA needs to make up for the $4.1 billion
gap between the program's original cost and its projected
expenses. NOAA's satellite program dwarfs the funding levels of
NOAA's other research and operation programs. Admiral, what
assurances, if any, can you provide the subcommittee today,
that any increased funding for NOAA's satellite programs, which
are important, will not infringe on the budget request for
NOAA's other research and operation programs, especially for
ocean-related activities?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. That's a very important
question. We have tried to work on, since I've arrived, a
longer range budget forecasting and programming system. One of
the results of that is that we have delivered to you, through
the chain of command, a budget that goes out 5 years. So you
can look--we can look and see what's there.
Senator Shelby. We know. And you're deeply challenged here.
I know this, as we are.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, yes we are. But I think there is
a realization, certainly through much of my chain of command in
the administration that you have to look at these longer term
plans and if you commit to a certain year, you are committing
to a budget estimate that must be accounted for. I assure you
that I will continue to push to have that capitalization budget
held separately from the operating budget. Can I guarantee what
will happen as you have future difficult budget decisions to
make? That's a very difficult thing for me to make projections
and commit to today. But I think there is more interest in
dealing with the capitalization budget on a rational basis and
looking at the operational budget.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. And I think this is going to be
one of our challenges here, too.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir.
NSF deg.NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DAYS
Senator Shelby. The National Science Foundation. Raising
the awareness of opportunities available through research
grants for the National Science Foundation, we know will
benefit the Nation and also bring researchers with great ideas
to an agency that funds the best of the best research. One such
way to do this is through the National Science Foundation days
where Foundation staff go to schools and explain the grant
application process and how to improve proposals submitted to
the National Science Foundation because we're interested in the
best of the best, aren't we, Doctor?
Dr. Bement. That's correct.
Senator Shelby. Could you give us briefly, some examples of
how high past NSF Days have had an impact on improving grant
approval rates at locations where the National Science
Foundation has conducted some of these meetings?
Dr. Bement. Yes, sir. As you know, NSF has conducted three
NSF days in the State of Alabama over the last 5 years, the
last one being at Tuskegee just last March. What we normally
discover is that it is an opportunity for all of those who
attend these NSF Days. Collectively, for all three of these
events, we interacted with 400 principal investigators (PIs) in
the State of Alabama. Those who attend the days have an
opportunity to talk with program officers and they have an
opportunity to talk with other PIs on how best to submit
proposals to the Foundation and especially how to submit a
successful proposal. The proposal volume does go up shortly
after the NSF Days, in fact, sometimes it's a blizzard. That is
not the end of the story. Beyond that, it is a matter of our
program officers working closely with the PIs after they may
have been declined the first time to improve their proposals so
that their chances of being accepted the second or third time
can go up.
We generally find that that's probably the best way to
succeed in getting a grant. It's seldom the case that a grant
is approved the first time but usually the second or third
time. So the role of the program officer is really very
critical.
I should tell you, however, that workload on our program
officers has become very enormous, primarily because what was
the salaries and expenses account, which we now call the agency
operation and award management account, keeps getting
truncated, one way or another.
The opportunity to improve success rate depends very much
on the ability of the program officers to work with the PIs in
improving their proposals.
NSF deg.EPSCOR PROGRAM ENHANCED
Senator Shelby. How will the elevation of the EPSCoR
program into the Office of the Director enhance its position
and benefit states in making them more competitive?
Dr. Bement. It will get the senior management team more
directly involved. We will be working more closely at that
level, with the leadership in EPSCoR, to see what more we can
do to re-invigorate the program and perhaps take a more
strategic approach in improving the leverage of the EPSCoR
investment. Those are the directions we'll be taking.
Senator Shelby. Madam Chairman, I have a number of
questions that I'd like to submit for the record, in the
interest of time, if you would.
NOAA deg.POLAR SATELLITES
Senator Mikulski. Certainly, Senator Shelby. We'll welcome
those questions and before you might have to depart because I
know we're--several appropriations hearings are going on
simultaneously. I'd like to pick up on the issue of polar
satellites and yesterday, Admiral Lautenbacher, you talked
about it because it's accountability and I've got two big
issues. You, with this satellite system and where we're heading
this way also, with the research facilities that I think are
getting overruns at the National Science Foundation.
You outline for me and I'd like you to outline and repeat
for Senator Shelby, how you intend to stand sentry over this
bill, to bring about the necessary management reforms and
oversight that have been triggered by Nunn-McCurdy that I think
we can expect a better stewardship of this because this is a
program that has overruns. We're worried about spending more
money to get less science.
This is one of the most crucial observatory tools that
we're going to have, particularly for the climate crisis. But
could you share, for the record which you shared with me and
I'd like very much if Senator Shelby heard it because every
time they hear about overruns, it's just one more excuse to not
get support for what we need to do for the agency. Would you
agree, Senator?
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be
very happy to do that. This obviously is a very critical issue
to me personally and to the agency.
The entire NOAA team is energized to work on this problem.
My Deputy for Satellites, Assistant Deputies, the Deputy Under
Secretary. We have set a program management team. We have
basically overhauled the management team inside of NOAA from
top to bottom. We've made personnel changes where necessary in
our chain of command and personnel changes within the program
office and set up, basically an inspector general (IG)--
internal IG to make sure that there is continual oversight. We
have also ensured that we'll work collaboratively with the
Department of Defense and NASA, the other two agencies involved
and I meet quarterly with the heads of acquisition for the
Department of Defense (DOD) and Space, which is the Under
Secretary of the Air Force and Administrator Mike Griffin from
NASA. So we are definitely, personally involved and we have
gotten the personal attention of the presidents of and chief
executive officers (CEOs) of Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, who
sit in those meetings, too.
We have program monitoring from the Government down to very
fine details inside the program. We are getting independent
cost estimates frequently. We have independent review teams
looking at it from outside to make sure we have independent
advice to make sure people are on track. We track schedules and
dollars on an earned value management system down four or five
levels into the program and that information is reported daily
and weekly, internal to the program.
We are changing the contract to set up the right
incentives. That was another criticism and we will reward
performance versus just hanging in there. We've also revamped
the program so that it is less risky. We have reduced the
amount of difficult technical milestones that contractors had
trouble meeting, to a level we believe they can be met. I am
confident that the schedule that we put in place with the new
funding profile is going to achieve success, and I assure you
that everyone at NOAA, from top to bottom, is committed to
making that happen, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby, does that give you a
little bit more assurance on this matter?
Senator Shelby. It does. I like what they're doing and
you're trying to do. I think you just need some more funds.
NSF deg.NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FACILITY FUNDING
Senator Mikulski. Let's go though, to also another area of
accountability, is with the National Science Foundation. We're
very concerned about the research facilities and also certain
tools for research. The Alaska region research vehicle that
Senator Stevens spoke about is really important. So we don't in
any way minimize the need to have this vessel. And it's a
research vessel, as I understand it, Director Bement, that has
to operate in ice under very rugged conditions. But at the same
time, it's running $25 million over the original estimate.
Now, this ship could run aground here, with cost overruns
and as Senator Stevens said, he's being treated like it's an
earmark when essentially it's an integral part of Arctic
research. And when the overruns come, it sounds like we're
picking and porking out here in some Alaska toy when it's not.
It is a very important research tool but we're very concerned
about this $25 million cost overrun. Now why are there overruns
and what are you going to do about it?
Dr. Bement. Yes, Senator, thank you. This vessel was scoped
a long time ago. The design was completed in 2004. The original
baseline budget was set at that time. It is now being re-
evaluated. Since that time, there have been changes in
regulations, some having to do with environmental operations,
some having to do with safety and operating in the Arctic
region. And as you know, this ship will operate in ice up to 2
to 3 feet thick so it will be a great advancement over the
Alpha Helix.
In addition to that, commodity costs, especially the cost
of steel has skyrocketed because of global demand, especially
from China. Furthermore, shipyards are now value pricing their
operations, primarily because they're overloaded with building
ships for the oil industry. So it's very difficult to get a
shipyard scheduled, and furthermore, the cost of construction
in a shipyard these days has also escalated. As we move into
the coming year, we're going to have to revisit the budget. I
can assure you it will be higher than it is now. This is just
the way things are turning out, but the sooner we get a start
on that project, and that's one of the reasons we want to start
it in 2007, the more I think we can mitigate these cost
increases over the next year or two.
Senator Mikulski. Do we know how much this is going to
cost?
Dr. Bement. I'm sorry?
Senator Mikulski. Do we--you know, it's a pattern here that
I've now experienced in other subcommittees and we're seeing it
here, that there was a project. It was 2004. Then we're
operating on data that is several years old and then we don't
know what the cost is. But when we get into these things and
they get started, it has congressional support because of the
scientific necessity and then there we are. Now, do we know
what this is actually going to cost?
Dr. Bement. Madam Chair, we will very shortly revisit the
design of this ship, based on current regulations. The redesign
will take place over the next 4 months or so, and we then will
re-baseline the cost. We will be able to report to you at that
time what we think the real cost will be for this ship.
Senator Mikulski. But at the same time that you're doing
that, are you also going to be rebasing these costs?
Dr. Bement. Oh, we do that on a continuing basis, not only
internal to the Foundation but also with the grantees that have
the responsibility for this ship.
Senator Mikulski. Well, just know, we believe that this
vessel is important, just like the satellites are important.
And the world is mesmerized by Arctic research and now we're
also looking at how to have more collaborative work with
Greenland. We could elaborate on that. But when these things go
$25 million, we also know that the ALMA telescope is $16
million over. Now why is the ALMA telescope $16 million over?
Dr. Bement. The ALMA telescope is pretty much the same
story. The reflectors on the telescope are made out of a very
expensive nickel-based alloy in order to prevent any thermal
expansion, because it's a very precise instrument. The cost of
those alloys have gone up enormously, again because of world
pressure on commodity costs, which was the biggest contributor
to the cost of the instrument. There are other factors that
also contributed to increased project costs: construction costs
in Chile and some upper management costs that escalated because
it is a 50/50 joint venture between the United States and the
European Southern Observatory that has been a very difficult
teaming relationship to put together and to operate.
Senator Mikulski. But then my question is--so what? Where
do we go from here? And what again are the fiscal disciplines
coupled with making sure that the fiscal discipline is so
severe we lose the point of the project?
Dr. Bement. Madam Chairman, we have re-scoped the project.
We've reduced the number of telescopes from 24 to 50 in order
to absorb some of the cost increases yet still retain the
transformational capability for this facility. We have put in
cost tracking methods and other management techniques and it
has undergone a high level senior review of all elements and
costs associated with the project. The project has been re-
baselined. We have re-established a contingency. We have better
management tools in place and I think based on the reports that
I get, are confident that we'll be able to stay within the
current budget.
Senator Mikulski. Well, you have a big responsibility here
in this agency but I can tell you that as you look at how all
of your research endeavors add up, if they begin to have
overruns, there will have to then be a moratorium on new
projects. I mean, the scientific community needs to know that.
That is, once that goes up, there is not just unlimited--I'm
not threatening. I'm not saying it. We would not do arbitrarily
or capriciously. But every time we turn around, there is some
big ticket being added then somebody else comes in and wants to
do something new and we have inherited what are now becoming
legacy projects and just these two alone come to $41 million in
cost overruns. We know that instruments are expensive. We know
about the global pressures on commodities, et cetera. At the
same time, we are where we are. And, therefore, there needs to
be both within the agencies themselves, all within our
portfolio, NASA, NSF, NOAA--all--the FBI with their info-tech
boondoggle that they are now getting back on track.
The subcommittee is going to be very stern on
accountability because it's the only way, particularly in these
off austere budget times, that we must get value for the
mission and I'm very--I want everyone in the Commerce, Justice,
Science to understand it's not being prickly but we just face a
real reality.
Dr. Bement. Well, Madam Chairman, I accept that. As a
matter of fact, I appreciate it because I stake my personal
accountability on these projects.
Senator Mikulski. And I know you do--we know each other
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Dr. Bement. And between myself and the Deputy Director and
our senior management team, we are spending much more time on
this. We are having more frequent reviews and I can assure that
going forward, we are going to watch these costs like a hawk.
NOAA deg.ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Mikulski. What we want to say very loud and very
clearly to both the agency directors, to the scientific
community and then to the private sector with whom we have to
have contracts with, we've got to really--we've got to really
exercise every modern fiscal discipline technique at our
disposal and the Congress loves science and technology. So do
the American people. But we can't rubber stamp. So that's kind
of what we wanted to talk about. We also want to encourage
ongoing cooperation in ocean research. That's something we'd
like to talk about more in another day, also really encouraging
our young people in science. I think Senator Shelby raised
this. I don't want the subcommittee to end on a downer. It's
because Senator Shelby and I are so committed to the fact of
really rising above the gathering storm. But we have to also
rise against what we fear is a gathering fiscal morass.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the administration for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr.
Question Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
progress on the u.s. ocean action plan
Question. In response to the U.S. Ocean Commission, the
Administration developed the ``U.S. Ocean Action Plan''. To date what
progress has been made regarding implementation of this plan? To what
extent does the ``U.S. Ocean Action Plan'' coincide with the
recommendations of the Joint Ocean Commission?
Answer. In January 2007, the Committee on Ocean Policy released the
``U.S. Ocean Action Plan Implementation Updates.'' Seventy-three of the
88 actions have been completed. The remaining actions are progressing
on schedule.
The U.S. Ocean Action Plan (OAP) was a required response under the
Oceans Act of 2000 to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Therefore,
it is difficult to directly map the OAP to the recommendations of the
combined Commissions, represented by the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative. In broad terms, both Commissions outlined the need for:
enhancing ocean leadership and coordination, developing the
institutional capacity to coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries,
and strengthening the agency structure in phases in order to enhance
the goals of addressing management needs through an ecosystem-based
approach.
``counterfeit'' fish
Question. A recent article in the Washington Post cited an example
of counterfeit fish being sold to restaurants and consumers in Florida.
The article reported how undercover agents ordered grouper at 24
Florida restaurants, but the alleged grouper at 17 of 24 restaurants
sampled by investigators was actually another, less desirable species,
according to DNA analysis conducted. NOAA reported that, in many
instances the ``grouper'' was actually farm-raised Asian catfish from
Vietnam or other species that swim with grouper, and the filets have
shown signs of salmonella and traces of illegal carcinogenic
fungicides.
How rampant of a problem is imported counterfeit fish?
Answer. Mislabeled seafood products are a significant problem in
the marketplace worldwide. While no definitive statistics exist about
the rates at which fish is mislabeled, the NOAA Seafood Inspection
Program (SIP) encounters several types of mislabeling that affect the
economic integrity of seafood products. Examples of mislabeling
include, substituting a lower cost species for a higher cost species,
such as the grouper example in your question, short weighing, and
altering the country of origin or fraudulently identifying the area
fished and port of landing.
A recent example of the problem is provided by a 2005 case where
NOAA SIP rejected over nine million pounds of seafood that was destined
for a large retail supermarket chain. Another recently completed
investigation disclosed the importation of approximately 3 million
pounds of falsely labeled fish product over a three year period. During
this investigation NOAA seized approximately 300,000 pounds of this
illegal fish which contained malachite green--a known carcinogen banned
by the FDA. NOAA SIP works with many retailers to ensure that the
seafood they buy meets their quality levels and these scenarios are not
untypical.
Question. Does NOAA have enough resources to adequately address
this problem?
Answer. Currently, NOAA has approximately 150 special agents and 20
enforcement officers dispersed nationwide. Incidents of mislabeling are
an international problem which provides substantial financial profits
to those who participate in this illegal activity. Although NOAA's
enforcement resources are primarily focused on importers and exporters,
this illegal activity extends well beyond these operations to included
distributors, wholesalers, retailers and restaurants. Investigations
can take years to complete, are labor intensive, demand extensive
financial and document analysis, and in many instances requires the
cooperation of other countries. NOAA leverages its investigative
resources by concentrating on the primary businesses (importers,
exporters or large distributors) which have the greatest impact on this
illegal activity.
Question. What is being done to prevent this problem from
escalating?
Answer. Continued investigations and subsequent successful
prosecutions of those found violating our laws is the best deterrent.
Our investigations have resulted in the seizure and ultimate forfeiture
of hundreds of thousands of pounds of mislabeled product worth millions
of dollars on the market. Additionally, the imposition of fines and
penalties in the millions of dollars and, in some cases, incarceration
has a significant impact. In one recent case, two businesses were
forfeited and we have observed the dissolution of business entities
involved in illegal activities as a result of our enforcement
activities. We continue to focus on the most blatant violators in an
effort to have the largest impact on this illegal activity. Publication
of our investigations and education of the public through various media
sources is extremely helpful.
aquaculture
Question. The NOAA budget for fiscal year 2008 requests an increase
of $3 million to develop a regulatory program for marine aquaculture.
What is the state of the U.S. marine aquaculture industry? What
investment are our international competitors doing in regard to marine
aquaculture? Are there technological barriers to more marine
aquaculture? What is being done to reduce those technological barriers?
Answer. The U.S. marine aquaculture industry is relatively small
compared with overall U.S. and world aquaculture production. U.S.
aquaculture production totals about $1 billion annually, compared to
world aquaculture production of about $70 billion. Only about 20
percent of U.S. aquaculture production is marine species.
The largest single sector of the U.S. marine aquaculture industry
is molluscan shellfish culture (oysters, clams, mussels), which
accounts for about two-thirds of total U.S. marine aquaculture
production, followed by salmon (about 25 percent) and shrimp (about 10
percent). Current production takes place mainly on land, in ponds, and
in coastal waters under state jurisdiction. Recent advances in offshore
aquaculture technology have resulted in several commercial finfish and
shellfish operations in more exposed, open-ocean locations in state
waters in Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Puerto Rico.
Marine aquaculture includes the production of hatchery fish and
shellfish which are released into the wild to support commercial and
recreational fisheries as well as to enhance or rebuild wild stock
populations. Marine aquaculture also includes the production of
ornamental fish for the aquarium trade and plant species used in a
range of food, pharmaceutical, nutritional, and biotechnology products.
There are also related industries--such as equipment production, feed,
and nutrition companies and aquaculture consulting service firms--that
provide support to the global aquaculture industry.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,
the United States ranked 10th in total aquaculture production in 2004,
behind China, India, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Japan,
Chile, and Norway. The United States imports significant volumes of
marine aquaculture products from these and other countries, resulting
in an annual seafood trade deficit of about $8 billion.
There is significant potential to increase aquaculture production
in the United States using today's technology. Preliminary production
estimates by NOAA indicate that domestic aquaculture production of all
species could increase from about 0.5 million tons annually to 1.5
million tons per year by 2025. The additional production could include
760,000 tons from finfish aquaculture, 47,000 tons from crustacean
production, and 245,000 tons from mollusk production. Of the 760,000
tons of finfish aquaculture, 590,000 tons could come from marine
finfish aquaculture.
The major barriers to marine aquaculture are finding suitable sites
in coastal areas (where aquaculture must compete with many other
coastal uses), clarifying the regulatory and environmental requirements
for existing as well as new marine aquaculture operations (including
offshore), and developing technologies and best management practices to
ensure that various types of production systems are compatible with
marine ecosystems. There is also a need to develop hatchery operations
to provide fingerlings for finfish production systems.
Business needs regulatory certainty to make sound investment
decisions and obtain financing. There is currently no way to obtain a
permit for aquaculture in federal waters under existing laws and
regulations. Thus, in response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the Department of Commerce drafted and sent
to Congress the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007. The Act
would provide the necessary authority to establish a regulatory
framework and authorize research for all types of marine aquaculture.
Those concerned about the impacts of offshore aquaculture need to
know the industry will be held to strict environmental standards by the
proposed legislation. One way to address these needs at the same time
as those of the marine aquaculture industry is through demonstration
projects with research partners so that technologies and practices can
be tested, their impacts evaluated, and systems improved. Another is to
support research projects to develop alternatives to use of fish oil
and fish meal in aquaculture feeds, develop culture methods for new
species of value to commercial production as well as stock enhancement,
and study the impacts (including cumulative impacts) of marine
aquaculture on marine ecosystems.
Since 1998, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has funded a total of $15 million through the National Marine
Aquaculture Initiative (NMAI) to support research to boost the
production of commercially and recreationally valuable marine shellfish
and finfish species in the United States. Projects have responded to
key scientific, engineering, environmental, and economic questions for
aquaculture. For example, NMAI has funded studies of candidate species,
health and nutrition, best management practices, ecosystems monitoring
and management, engineered production systems, and legal and
operational frameworks.
In September 2006, NOAA awarded $3.6 million in competitive grants
to 11 sustainable marine aquaculture demonstration and research
projects under NMAI. The initiative is managed by the NOAA Aquaculture
Program and administered by NOAA Sea Grant. The 2006 NMAI funding
supports projects to assess the commercial potential of marine
aquaculture, the feasibility of stock enhancement, the environmental
impacts of aquaculture in various environments, as well as research on
key aquatic animal nutrition and health issues.
Another way in which NOAA is working to address technological
barriers is through a planning process with the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Interior to develop a national
aquatic animal health plan. This plan, which has been in development
for four years and has included stakeholders from industry and state
agencies, will provide protection for the nation's cultured and wild
aquatic resources, facilitate safe commerce of live products, and
improve the availability of diagnostic laboratories for aquaculture.
This plan will be completed by summer of 2007.
NOAA also has marine aquaculture research capabilities at NOAA
laboratories within the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
National Ocean Service, and research and extension capabilities through
state Sea Grant Programs. Congressionally mandated research--such as an
open ocean aquaculture demonstration project at the University of New
Hampshire and research around the country on oysters, shrimp, crab, and
other species--has also helped to advance the state of marine
aquaculture technology. Other federal agencies and research
institutions are also investing in research to address technological
challenges. For example, the Advanced Technology Program within the
National Institute for Standards and Technology has supported a number
of advanced research and technology projects. In addition, aquaculture
companies have received support for the development of commercial
products and services through the Small Business Innovation Program
(SBIR) at NOAA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and, in the past,
through the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program.
noaa's center for weather and climate prediction project
Question. The Committee was recently informed that the planned
Center for Weather and Climate Prediction in College Park is behind
schedule and cost estimates have increased for NOAA ``above standard''
improvements.
What are the consequences to NOAA's budget request due to the
delayed construction schedule?
Is NOAA reexamining the ``above standard'' improvements in order to
lessen any budgetary impacts?
Answer. The NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction (NCWCP)
project is a build and lease-back project under which a private
developer is responsible for building a facility, in this case on
property owned by the University of Maryland. The developer will own
the building once built, and NOAA will lease back the building. The
developer is only responsible, under the development lease with the
General Services Administration (GSA) who is managing the project for
the government, to build general office building space. Tenant specific
requirements--such as enhanced heating, ventilation, air conditioning,
electrical, and lighting capabilities--required to support specialized
(above office-standard) NOAA operations such as weather and climate
modeling, laboratory operations, analysis of global environmental
satellite data, and protecting the reliable flow of critical weather
warning, forecast, and data products to the Public must be paid for by
NOAA as part of the initial construction costs of the building.
NOAA has been apprised by GSA that, due to delays in the
construction schedule and general increases in construction costs
(labor and materials) at rates higher than those projected by GSA when
the initial cost estimate for the project was developed in 2002, NOAA
should expect increases in the cost of above-standard construction
work. NOAA has not yet received final pricing of above-standard
construction work from the developer. Once we have received this
pricing information, we will assess the impact on fiscal year 2008.
Failure by the government to timely fund these costs could further
delay the construction schedule; and expose the government to claims
from the developer for government-caused delays and associated
financial damages.
We are continuing to re-examine areas where we can take reductions
in above-standard requirements without compromising the mission
conducted at the facility, so as to mitigate budgetary impacts.
npoess and goes-r funding request
Question. Please provide a detailed breakout of the NPOESS and
GOES-R program funding requests for fiscal year 2008 for each of the
major aspects of the programs.
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 request for the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite Series R (GOES-R) Series is $279
million. The breakout of the budget request, in millions of dollars, is
as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development Activity Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Acquisition and Operations....................... 45
Spacecraft.............................................. 14
Instruments:
Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) to meet the 54
production schedule for launch and provide real-
time environmental data and uninterruptible
observations.......................................
Solar Imaging Suite (SIS) preliminary design........ 55
Space Environmental In Situ Suite (SEISS) 21
preliminary design.................................
Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) continuation of 17
the acquisition and operations phase...............
Government Program Office Operations.................... 73
---------------
TOTAL GOES-R Fiscal Year 2008 Request............. 279
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combined fiscal year 2008 request for the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) is $666
million. Of that amount, NOAA's portion is $331 million, with the
remaining funding coming from the U.S. Air Force. The breakout of the
fiscal year 2008 budget request, in millions of dollars, is as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development Activity Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Acquisition--NPOESS Prime Contract:
Ground Systems...................................... 98
Spacecraft and Instruments.......................... 340
System Engineering/Program Management............... 142
Government Program Office Operations.................... 86
---------------
TOTAL NPOESS Fiscal Year 2008 Request............. 666
------------------------------------------------------------------------
goes-r program trl level
Question. The NOAA budget justification states that the GOES-R
satellite launch date is now ``no earlier than 2014'' and that this
provides ``additional opportunities to mitigate identified risks in
GOES-R development.''
Using the NASA defined Technical Readiness Scale (TRL), what level
is the GOES-R program currently in? What TRL level will GOES-R be in at
the end of fiscal year 2008?
Answer. Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) for GOES-R are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current TRL Projected TRL
Instrument (September (September
2006) 2008)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI).......... 5 6
Solar Imaging Suite (SIS)............... 6 6
Space Environmental In-Situ Suite 5 6
(SEISS)................................
Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM).... 4 5
Spacecraft contract..................... ( \1\ ) 5-6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not awarded.
goes satellite construction time
Question. Please provide a summary of how long it took to build
each GOES satellite starting with GOES-11 through GOES-P.
Answer.
GOES I-M Series
Contract award for the Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites (GOES) I-M Series was made on 1985. The first in the series,
GOES-I, was launched in April 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Award
Satellite Date Satellite Launch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOES-L (GOES-11)................. 1985.............. May 2000
GOES-M (GOES-12)................. 1985.............. July 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOES N-Series
GOES N-Series used the same primary instruments as the GOES I-M
Series but a different spacecraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Award
Satellite Date Satellite Launch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOES-N (GOES-13)................. 1998.............. May 2006
GOES-O........................... 1998.............. Spring 2008
GOES-P........................... 1998.............. Spring 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both the GOES I-M Series and GOES N-P Series, it took longest
to build and launch the first satellite in the Series. The second and
subsequent satellites in the Series are the same design as the first
satellite.
probability of goes-r operational gap
Question. What is the estimated probability of an operational gap
if GOES-R launches in 2013? 2014? 2015?
Answer. In order to minimize the probability of an operational gap,
NOAA maintains two operational spacecraft, Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES)-East and GOES-West, and an on-orbit
spare at all times. The on-orbit spare can be activated to operational
status in a short period of time in the event either GOES-East or GOES-
West satellites fail.
NOAA constantly assesses the health of the spacecraft and
instruments and uses sophisticated statistical techniques to calculate
when satellites are needed to avoid an operational gap. Based on these
analyses, NOAA has determined that the GOES-R satellite needs to launch
in December 2014 to serve as the on-orbit spare. Two years later it
will replace GOES-O as an operational satellite.
Launching GOES-R in December 2014 results in a 78 percent
probability of two spacecraft availability.
Launching GOES-R in 2013 increases the probability to 86 percent of
two operational spacecraft.
Launching GOES-R later in 2015, decreases the two-operational
spacecraft availability to 62 percent.
Question. If an operational gap were to occur in GOES-R--what
backup plan exists (e.g., utilizing other systems (allied or
domestic))?
Answer. A single catastrophic failure of GOES-R would not
compromise our ability to provide coverage. Should GOES-R sustain a
catastrophic failure, GOES-S is planned to be launched (April 2016) in
sufficient time to support the planned GOES-R activation in 2017. If
the GOES constellation were to sustain multiple catastrophic failures,
then NOAA would continue to rely on potentially degraded support using
existing satellites from the GOES-N Series, or a degraded single
satellite constellation located over the central United States.
Further, NOAA would supplement data needs from all available NOAA
and non-NOAA polar-orbiting environmental satellites. NOAA also has on-
going international agreements to provide mutual geostationary
environmental satellite back-up with the European Organisation for the
Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) and the Japanese
Meteorological Agency (JMA) in the event of premature system or launch
failure. This arrangement is based on previous experience of NOAA
providing backup to JMA, and EUMETSAT providing backup support to NOAA.
Under the single satellite constellation, NOAA would lose the ability
to detect and track storms at the edges of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans. This could lead to degraded hurricane forecasting in the
Caribbean and Atlantic coasts, and Hawaii, respectively.
Question. If an operational gap were to occur in GOES-R--what
backup plan exists (e.g., utilizing other systems (allied or
domestic))?
Answer. A single catastrophic failure of GOES-R would not
compromise our ability to provide coverage. Should GOES-R sustain a
catastrophic failure, GOES-S is planned to be launched (April 2016) in
sufficient time to support the planned GOES-R activation in 2017. If
the GOES constellation were to sustain multiple catastrophic failures,
then NOAA would continue to rely on potentially degraded support using
existing satellites from the GOES-N Series.
Further, NOAA would supplement data needs from all available NOAA
and non-NOAA polar-orbiting environmental satellites. NOAA also has on-
going international agreements to provide mutual geostationary
environmental satellite back-up with the European Organisation for the
Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) and the Japanese
Meteorological Agency (JMA) in the event of premature system or launch
failure. This arrangement is based on previous experience of NOAA
providing backup to JMA, and EUMETSAT providing backup support to NOAA.
Question. If an operational gap does occur--what is the impact to
short-term forecasting ability?
Answer. In the event there was a gap in coverage from the
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), the most
immediate impact would be loss in the quality of short term weather
forecasts and timeliness of data refresh from every 30 minutes with
GOES to every 6 hours with polar-orbiting satellite data.
Without GOES, forecasters would be blind to short-term variations
in hazard weather events such as hurricanes, thunderstorms, flash
floods, low clouds and fog.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
coastal non-point pollution
Question. The Coastal Zone Management Act gives authority to
coastal states to implement a coastal nonpoint polluted runoff control
program and both the Pew and U.S. Ocean Commissions found that polluted
runoff is the single greatest source of ocean pollution. How can you
assure us that coastal states will get adequate funding to carry out
these coastal water quality programs in the 2007 budget? And because
the President's 2008 budget provides zero funding for this program,
what will you do to restore funding for this vital program?
Answer. Although NOAA was not able to fund the non-point grants
within the fiscal year 2007 plan, NOAA has funded the Coastal Zone
Management Grants at $65.7 million. States can reallocate resources
within their programs to address their highest priorities, including
the coastal water quality programs. In addition, states benefit from
NOAA's development and dissemination of management tools and scientific
research on nonpoint source pollution problems and responses.
NOAA continues to support state Coastal Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Management Programs by fostering program integration, and by helping
coastal states focus on managing the cumulative and secondary impacts
of development to prevent NPS pollution. NOAA is also investing in
monitoring, research, and modeling to support NPS management, such as
through the development, testing and transfer of innovative
technologies and best management practices to control polluted runoff.
We are actively pursuing efforts to link coastal growth and development
management with water quality protection by fostering a greater
emphasis on community development and planning efforts to address
growth issues in a sustainable manner.
The Non Point Implementation Grants have not been included in the
President's Request for NOAA for a number of years, as significant
funding for this issue is requested through other Federal Agencies.
NOAA and the Coastal States Organization (CSO) have undertaken a
project to engage coastal managers and stakeholders to envision the
future of coastal management. The goal of this visioning process is to
gather feedback on priority issues and innovative ideas for improving
the CZMA and the National Coastal Management Program. State coastal
managers have identified decreasing water quality as one of the highest
priority threats to the coastal resources of their states. Workshops
will be held for stakeholders, coastal management experts and other
Federal agencies to generate innovative techniques and solutions,
explore their feasibility, and assess their potential impacts and
degree of support among constituents.
coastal zone management grants
Question. Funding for California's core coastal management program
has been capped at $2 million for the past 14 years while population
growth now finds 1 in 10 Americans living along the California coast.
Given that funding for coastal management nationally has increased
during the same period by more than $20 million, are you going to
allocate funds in the 2007 budget to the large coastal states
proportionate to their population and length of coastline as mandated
by the Coastal Zone Management Act?
Answer. We greatly appreciate the multitude of issues that
California's coastal management agencies face in managing the
activities which affect your State's coastal resources. We also
recognize the effectiveness of the California's coastal management
efforts which have been consistently documented in our Section 312
evaluations of your programs.
As mandated by the CZMA, Section 306 funding is awarded pursuant to
a formula based on the shoreline mileage and coastal population of each
state. The fiscal year 2007 funds have been allocated pursuant to this
formula.
A $2 million cap on individual state allocations has been put in
place by Congress for the past 14 years through the appropriations
process. NOAA has followed this Congressional direction.
nrdc vs. rodgers settlement implementation
Question. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a Party
to the Settlement in NRDC v. Rodgers (concerning restoration of flows
below Friant Dam in the Central Valley Project) and NMFS has an
important role to play to ensure the success of the restoration effort
required by the Settlement, especially the reintroduction of Chinook
salmon. Could you please tell me what NOAA and NMFS are currently doing
to support the Settlement implementation effort, what actions are
proposed in fiscal year 2008 by NOAA and NMFS to further implement the
Settlement, and what actions are needed, if any, to ensure that the
Department of Commerce has the necessary staff and resources to fulfill
its future roles and responsibilities under this major Settlement?
Answer. NMFS Southwest Regional Office has been actively involved
in the Settlement since October 23, 2006. NMFS has been working closely
with the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, parties to
the Settlement, and third parties on actions required to implement the
Settlement. We have already provided staff to: (1) brief technical
working groups and the public on fisheries, fish habitat, and
Endangered Species Act compliance issues; (2) engage in all
implementation-related technical and management meetings; (3) answer
Congressional questions and review draft legislation; (4) provide
expertise and technical support for the development of implementation-
related documents; and (5) provide management and policy-level guidance
to the overall Settlement and implementation processes. NMFS is working
closely with the Bureau of Reclamation's Sacramento Office to secure
reimbursable funding to support staff to fully implement all of our
roles under the Settlement. Depending on the availability of funding
for this Settlement, NMFS will continue working on the 26 items listed
below in a coordinated and collaborative manner.
1. Review plans and designs for 14 major structural projects
2. Analyses, review and provide recommendations on over 500 varying
flows regimes
3. Develop and review MOUs including associated budgets
4. Review numerous contracts
5. Review several Friant Dam maintenance and operational plans
6. Review several water right options
7. Develop and review recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange or
transfer of water plans and proposed modifications including monitoring
8. Review draft development and implementation water plans
9. Coordinate with 6 State agencies, 5 Federal agencies, tribes,
and numerous NGOs
10. Develop and review design, engineering, and monitoring studies
11. Review potential land acquisitions and easements
12. Develop and review environmental and permitting documents
13. Undertake ESA Section 7 consultations and reinitiate
consultations
14. Undertake ESA Section 10 consultations and reinitiate
consultations
15. Develop and review procedural documents
16. Analyze, review, and make recommendations on: water year data;
water flows data and models; riparian corridors habitat models; Chinook
fall-run and spring-run and steelhead populations
17. Analyses, review, and make recommendations on: Restoration
Administrator proposed actions: Technical Advisory Committee proposed
activities; BOR and FWS proposed actions; CA DWR and DFG proposed
actions; Secretary of the Interior proposed actions
18. Participation in numerous technical committees
19. Provide assistance to Federal and State agencies staffs
20. Review legal and procedural documents
21. Provide technical expertise and assist in the development of
the restoration plans
22. Develop and execute budgets and financial plans
23. Make recommendations to Secretary of Commerce
24. Make recommendations to Secretary of the Interior
25. Develop and execute monitoring plans
26. Documentation of all activities for any future court actions
funding levels for severe weather research
Question. The overall NOAA budget request for 2008 is less than 2
percent greater than that for 2006, including reductions in funding of
$82 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and reductions of $4
million for the National Weather Service. Given the large impacts of
severe weather events on our nation's economy and the central role of
climate change research in preparing our nation to adapt to the
economic and ecologic impacts of climate change, can NOAA fulfill its
mission at the funding levels requested in the President's budget? If
not, what level of additional support is needed to properly address
these challenges?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget for NOAA requests a
total of $3.8 billion, an increase of $131 million or 3.4 percent over
the fiscal year 2007 President's budget. NOAA believes that the fiscal
year 2008 budget request will allow NOAA to fulfill its obligations.
The budget request advances mission-critical services, including work
to expand meteorological prediction and extend our knowledge of
climatic change.
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) requests a
total of $368.8 million in fiscal year 2008, reflecting a net increase
of $20.1 million from the fiscal year 2007 President's budget and a
decrease of $10.9 million from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. The
decrease from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level is due primarily to
the large number of un-requested projects in 2006. Even in a tight
budget year, the fiscal year 2008 budget request supports some new,
cutting-edge science efforts by OAR's research programs.
The National Weather Service (NWS) requests $903.5 million in
fiscal year 2008, reflecting a net increase of $21.6 million over the
fiscal year 2007 President's budget as well as an increase of $55.2
million from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This budget request
continues NWS on a path to produce and deliver forecasts that are
trusted, employ cutting-edge technologies, provide services in a cost-
effective manner, strive to eliminate weather-related fatalities, and
improve the economic value of weather, water, and climate information.
The request fully supports NWS forecast and warning operations. NOAA/
NWS is committed to improving operational effectiveness and services,
particularly for high-impact weather events, by taking full advantage
of emerging science and technological improvements. We are committed to
evolving services to best meet the changing and growing need for
environmental forecasts and services. The NWS's fiscal year 2008 budget
request supports efforts to upgrade the NEXRAD Radar network by
implementing dual polarimetric radar. It also supports other efforts
including: improved numerical modeling, data assimilation, education
and outreach, training, forecaster workstation (AWIPS) upgrades, as
well as efforts for future technological advances, such as phased array
radar (PAR). We believe the President's fiscal year 2008 budget Request
positions us to make those technical and service improvements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
ocean initiative funding
Question. I am pleased to see that NOAA's 2008 budget request
includes an increase of $123 million for the President's Ocean Action
Plan, which is in part, related to the Joint Ocean Commission's recent
reports. As you know, the Senate has been working with the Commission
to receive specific, real-world guidance on how to improve ocean
research and education. NOAA's increase is a step in the right
direction, but based on the Commission's recommendations, the Nation
still have a long way to go. Admiral, I know you are well aware of the
Joint Ocean Commission's recent reports, and I know you strive to
better our nation's ocean research activities. How can the Senate help
you to ensure that this trend on funding increases and program
advancements continues?
Answer. As you are aware, the fiscal year 2008 President's budget
request includes $123 million in direct support of the President's
Ocean Action Plan. To continue this positive trend in NOAA's ocean
programs, please support the President's budget; specifically those
items that support the Ocean Action Plan. We thank you and your
colleagues for your continued support of NOAA's ocean programs, and ask
that you continue to be leaders on ocean and coastal issues on a
national level.
noaa corps reauthorization
Question. Admiral, the Committee supports NOAA Commissioned Officer
Corps and the valuable expertise they lend to NOAA's field operations
and homeland security activities. The Committee understands that the
NOAA Corps authorization, which regulates the size of the Corps, has
expired. When can Congress expect the NOAA Corps legislation package to
be cleared by NOAA?
Answer. NOAA is interested in reauthorizing the NOAA Corps and we
look forward to working with the Committee on this important
legislation. Efforts to consider and possible develop a NOAA Corps
legislation package are currently underway.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Mikulski. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 p.m., Thursday, March 8, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:04 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Shelby, Stevens, and Alexander.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, Ph.D.,
ADMINISTRATOR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to
the subcommittee hearing of Commerce, State, Justice. The topic
today will be the appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA). As we have said earlier, the
subcommittee was focusing on innovation, security, and
accountability. Once again, we feel that NASA is the premier
innovation agency within the United States Government.
We know that more inventions, technology, and patents have
come out of NASA than I think is ever fully grasped or fully
appreciated by the American people, and certainly at times by
people who wear green eyeshades.
Today we are going to hear from the NASA Administrator, Dr.
Mike Griffin, about the agency budget and priorities. Since our
hearing last year, a NASA civil servant, Dr. John Mather, a
civil servant at Goddard, won the Nobel Prize, the New Horizons
Mission has given us new spectacular pictures of Jupiter on its
way to Pluto. Cassini continues to send its images from Saturn,
and good old Hubble keeps plugging away, continuing
extraordinary contributions to science even though it is
running a little low these days. We have successfully and
safely returned the Space Shuttle to flight and laid the
foundation to return to the Moon and eventually to go to Mars.
For 2008, the President's budget funds NASA at $17.3
billion, a 6.8-percent increase over the continuing resolution
level. But when we look at the President's budget over the 2007
request, it is a 3-percent increase over last year. To put
NASA's budget in perspective, a $17.3 billion budget represents
seven-tenths of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget.
As we looked at science funding we see inside the budget
request, $5.5 billion, a $300 million increase over the
continuing resolution, or a $50 million increase when compared
to the 2007 budget, the budget for science includes funding for
Hubble servicing, the continuing development of the Webb
telescope, and other missions. We are very, very pleased that
these two will be in 2008.
I do see a significant problem with future science budgets
because from 2008 to 2011 it only goes up by 1 percent, and we
will be talking about that with the Administrator.
For Earth science, the budget shows a cut in funding
starting next year, and by 2012 the budget for Earth science
will be $200 million less than in 2008.
Now, the exciting news is the National Academy of Sciences
recently released its report on the future of Earth science,
calling for new Earth science missions by NASA over the next
decade, 14 of them, and also others to be done by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and one in
conjunction. Though this year's NASA budget does not
accommodate any of these new missions, we would like to discuss
these with the Administrator, get his reaction, and try to find
a way forward.
In 1988 the aeronautics budget at NASA was $1.5 billion.
Today it is $554 million. Every commercial aircraft on-line
today uses technology developed by NASA and we need to talk
about our aeronautics program because, after all, when we look
at its name, it is the national aeronautics, as well as the
national space program.
The Space Shuttle budget is $4 billion, the same as 2007
funding. The administration's budget calls for 14 additional
flights to space, one to fix the Hubble. We just wonder how the
Shuttle is doing. We know you have been hit by, was it, ice,
hail? But our Space Shuttle returned to flight and the safety
of our astronauts remains our number one priority. So we will
be asking, how long can we keep the Shuttle going. And of
course, like the Administrator, we do not want to be in the
dark on the landing pad with a Shuttle return and not a way
forward.
When we talk about exploration, it is a $500 million
increase over the continuing resolution funding and, quite
frankly, we are disturbed about the continuing resolution
funding. If Shelby-Mikulski had passed from the way we did the
bill, we would have been in a better spot. But you know, we are
where we are. We know that NASA estimates that it is going to
cost $16 billion to build Ares and Orion by 2012. We are
concerned that there will be a 4-year delay between the
retirement of the Space Shuttle and the launch of Orion and
Ares. And look at it. The delay is not caused by Congress. As I
understand, the President's plan also reflects this. But we do
not want to delay any more than we can.
The Space Station will receive $2.2 billion, an increase of
over $300 million, and we know we need to also have a way of
resupplying it. So as we look ahead, there is no real growth in
NASA's budget and there is no margin for error or overruns, and
there is a lot of pressure on the NASA budget and on the
Administrator on how to coordinate all the pieces that often
need to move forward in what we hope is a balanced space
program.
Senator Hutchison and I will work to increase the top line
by $1 billion and to repay NASA for the cost of Columbia. We
also want to salute both Hutchison and Nelson, who are putting
NASA in the President's authorizing legislation, putting NASA
in the President's competitiveness agenda, and I will say more
about that in my questions and answers.
But no matter how we look at it, we just think that we have
too many good things for too little money and we are concerned
about that.
We intend to, as always, pledge our bipartisan support to
work with Senator Shelby, with the space Senators, to help
balance the space program. But I remember over a decade ago
President Bush's dad and then Vice President Quayle when they
were contemplating the Space Station and some other
breakthroughs on a very important Apollo anniversary invited us
to the White House for a space summit, to kind of get a
navigational chart on where we wanted to go in space and then
what would be the revenue stream that we would talk about over
multiple years.
I think it is time for another space summit so that we can
talk over both the President's agenda, the need to continue our
effort in space science and aeronautics and to make sure that
our country is number one in innovation, always ahead in
competition on new ideas and new technology, knowing that we
have got to get to the Moon, know that China is looming out
there, and at the same time continue the bold, bodacious space
exploration that is characteristic of our program.
So having said that, it is just a direction to suggest and
discuss, and as always I turn with real warmth and collegiality
to my ranking member, Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Griffin, thank you for joining us here today. This is
an important hearing because it gives us on the subcommittee an
opportunity to discuss the significant role of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and its budget proposal.
NASA's proposed budget for 2008 is $17.3 billion. This is a $1
billion increase to NASA's base programs or 6.5 percent over
2007 joint resolution funding level.
This is by some yardsticks a sizable sum, considering the
funding constraints that the Federal Government faces in the
coming fiscal year. But it is not too much money, Dr. Griffin,
for what we want to do. The requested increase can be
attributed to $522 million for funding exploration systems
which will enable NASA to return to the Moon, an additional
$652 million for the exploration capabilities account, which
will allow for further construction of the International Space
Station and other space operations.
While these are significant increases, the proposed budget
also contains a reduction of $336 million to aeronautics. Dr.
Griffin, I think it is important to note that, while this
budget reflects the President's implementation of the
exploration vision, it is also grounded in NASA's 2007 request
rather than the actual funding level provided in the 2007
funding resolution. This poses many difficulties for this
subcommittee in developing its proposal for NASA funding in
2008.
There are many complex elements required to achieve the
goal of returning to the Moon. No one knows this better than
you, Dr. Griffin. First there are the preparatory missions,
such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater
Observation and Sensing Satellite, which will launch, I
understand, in October 2008. The follow-on mission, which is
expected to launch around 2010 or 2011, has been selected since
December 2005. Yet the 2008 budget continues to be vague
regarding a time line for beginning the development work.
Delaying such preparation missions will only further delay
man's return to the Moon. I understand that the preparatory
lunar missions are moving forward and that the crew launch and
crew exploration vehicles are well into their design and
development work. Over the past year NASA has refined the Ares
vehicle to be a five-segment solid rocket booster and selected
the J-2X engine for its upper stage. This selection will make
it possible for the Orion capsule to reach the Space Station
and also be ready for a rendezvous with other vehicles for the
trip to the lunar surface.
These are but a few examples of the ongoing work needed to
make NASA's goals a reality. It is my hope, Dr. Griffin, that
the implementation of the President's vision can be
accomplished while maintaining the capabilities that NASA has
developed in other mission areas. I do not believe that we
should sacrifice missions and capabilities that will be vital
to the future of exploration while trying to obtain this goal.
I believe that we can and should find a balance here.
Much like last year's hearing, we are reminded today that
the proposed plan for returning to the Moon is contingent on
several factors. We are all keenly aware that any unexpected
bump along the path could pose significant challenges to NASA's
long-term plans. We can point to the sizable funding
requirements of flying the Space Shuttle until it retires in
2010 and the ongoing construction of the International Space
Station's heavy fiscal burdens on NASA's ability to continue
down the path laid out in the vision for exploration.
The continual strains on NASA's budget require that we all
work together as partners to ensure NASA can meet its many
objectives.
Dr. Griffin, I am very interested in you discussing how
NASA today will preserve its ongoing programs and how it will
modernize its ongoing programs and how it will modernize its
institutions and facilities which are critical to NASA's
success in the coming years. I expect that we will have an
ongoing dialogue over the course of the year about NASA's
ability to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
I am also excited by the opportunities that lay ahead
regarding the exploration vision at NASA. But I must point out
the fiscal realities that you face every day that have and will
continue to affect some of these efforts. NASA must show the
same resourcefulness in operating within fiscal reality on the
ground as it does in its innovation and can-do spirit for
exploring space.
Dr. Griffin, I believe that the subcommittee has made every
effort to work with you and we will continue to provide NASA
with the appropriate level of funding to ensure that roles and
missions are protected and preserved. When such significant
funds are provided, it is NASA's responsibility to have the
systems in place to ensure that these funds are spent
responsibly.
I am concerned that for the fourth year in a row NASA's
financial systems have earned the worst rating possible from
the administration. We were assured in our hearing last year
that efforts were underway to fix these problems. Yet,
according to the administration there has been little progress
since we last met. In addition, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has released its annual high risk report that
focuses on programs with the greatest vulnerability to fraud,
waste, and mismanagement. NASA has the unfortunate distinction,
Dr. Griffin, of having been included in the 1990 inaugural
edition for its contract management and remains on the high
risk list to this day.
Finally, the annual audit of NASA's financial statement by
an independent auditing firm does not bring me any comfort.
NASA's finances were disclaimed in both 2005 and 2006 due to an
inability to provide auditable financial statements as well as
material weaknesses in its financial systems regarding the
management of property and equipment. With such assessments of
NASA's accounting, the agency's $17.3 billion request should be
backed up, I believe, by solid budget practices, not shoddy,
unclear bookkeeping. I believe that NASA should be as committed
to fiscal responsibility to this subcommittee, the
Appropriations Committee, and the taxpayer as it is to your
exploration mission, which we commend you for.
I think, Dr. Griffin, NASA must be better as far as what is
going on with its books. I look forward, Dr. Griffin, to
discussing how we may find a solution that keeps all of NASA's
activities moving forward. It will be a difficult task, given
the demands for funding across all of the agencies in this
bill. The administration did not leave many crumbs on the table
after making severe cuts to, among other things, NOAA and the
proposed over $1.5 billion in reductions to State and local law
enforcement. But we are willing to work with you and the
chairman to ensure that NASA receives the funds necessary to
achieve the Nation's goals. We look forward to your testimony.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
Now I would like to turn to Dr. Griffin, but I also want to
acknowledge--Senator, can you stay for the hearing then? I know
you have a lot of pressures with Defense.
Senator Stevens. We have a Defense hearing at 2:30. I will
have to leave soon, but I would like to hear Dr. Griffin if
possible.
Senator Mikulski. As soon as Dr. Griffin finishes, to
accommodate you, Senator, shall we turn to you then for
questions? Okay.
Dr. Griffin. Senator, in deference to your time constraints
today, I will keep my opening remarks short, but would like to
enter my opening statement in the record along with my other
formal statement.
Senator Mikulski. We also want to note this is the third
day that you are testifying on NASA budget, two in the House
yesterday, the authorizers and the appropriators, and this is
the third.
ADMINISTRATOR GRIFFIN'S OPENING REMARKS
Dr. Griffin. Thank you.
Chairman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, members of the
subcommittee: I thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
our $17.3 billion fiscal year 2008 request. I am here today to
seek your support for that request. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request is 3.1 percent higher than that requested by the
President for fiscal year 2007 and demonstrates his commitment
to maintaining our Nation's leadership role in space
exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.
But it supports many diverse priorities in these
disciplines and so we need to allocate our resources carefully.
In this we are guided by the NASA Authorization Act, our annual
appropriations legislation, Presidential policy, and the
decadal surveys of the national academies. But even so, we
cannot afford everything that our many constituencies would
like us to do. You will not find major strategic changes in the
fiscal year 2008 budget request as compared to that for last
year, but you will see some slight course corrections. Overall
I think we are heading in the right direction and I think we
have made great strides in the past year and we are on track
and making progress in carrying out our tasks.
We have aligned NASA's aeronautics program with the first
ever presidential policy on aeronautics research and
development (R&D). The goal of this policy is to ensure that
NASA and other agencies advance U.S. technological leadership
in aeronautics.
We currently operate an armada of over 50 Earth and space
science satellites and payloads today in orbit around the
Earth, our Sun, and other planets. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request provides the resources to launch 10 new science
missions in that year, most of which involve international
partners or other U.S. Government agencies. Our $5.5 billion
portfolio of Earth and space science accounts for almost 32
percent of the budget.
It is interesting to develop some perspective on this.
During the 1960s, the decade of Apollo, science was 17 percent
of the NASA portfolio. By the early 1990s, it had grown to 24
percent and today, as I said, it is 32 percent. In contrast,
NASA's human space flight account during the Apollo years was
63 percent of the budget and is 62 percent today. So science is
doing very well at NASA.
Now, our greatest challenge over the next few years is to
fly the Space Shuttle safely while using it to finish the
International Space Station and to do one final Hubble Space
Telescope mission, and then transitioning to our new systems,
the Orion crew exploration vehicle and the Ares 1 immediately
thereafter.
Human space flight is a strategic capability for this
Nation. We are now, as you know, facing about 4, 4\1/2\ year
gap following Space Shuttle retirement when the United States
will not have its own human space flight capability. Some in
the Earth and space science community have called for further
delays in NASA's human space flight efforts in order to allow
more money to be set aside for science missions. I do not agree
with this and, in fact, I often wonder what the community of
scientists would say if they and not the human space flight
community were facing a 4\1/2\ desert of opportunity.
If Orion is further delayed, we will be viewed by many as
ceding our Nation's leadership in human space flight at a time
when Russia and China have such capabilities and India has
declared its intention to develop them.
In 1963 President Kennedy visited Redstone Arsenal in
Huntsville and posed the following question: ``I know there are
lots of people now who say, why go any further in space. When
Columbus was halfway through his voyage the same people said,
why go on any further? What will we possibly find? What good
will it be? They want to stop now. I believe the United States
of America is committed to be first in space, and the only way
we are going to be first in space is to work as hard as we can
here and all across the country.''
I love that quote for its endorsement of the necessity to
stay the course.
So when you consider our fiscal year 2008 funding request,
I ask you to consider our Nation's interests above the
interests of any individual product, program, or constituency.
The United States is a recognized leader in space because
several successive Presidents and Congresses have worked
together in the past to make the right strategic decisions, but
this leadership is something we cannot take for granted.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I believe that our budget request today provides you with a
carefully considered, balanced set of programs for our Nation's
civil space effort, with world-class Earth and space science,
strategic capabilities in human space flight, and U.S.
technical leadership in aeronautics. We need the help of the
Congress to provide the resources to maintain that leadership.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Griffin
Chairman Mikulski and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
2008 Budget request for NASA. The President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
request for NASA is $17.3 billion. This represents a 3.1 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2007 request for the agency, but not the
enacted fiscal year 2007 appropriation. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request for NASA demonstrates the President's continued commitment to
our Nation's leadership in space and aeronautics research, especially
during a time when there are other competing demands for our Nation's
resources. The fiscal year 2008 budget request reflects a stable plan
to continue investments begun in prior years, with some slight course
corrections. Overall, I believe that we are heading in the right
direction. We have made great strides this past year, and NASA is on
track and making progress in carrying out the tasks before us.
Before I outline the fiscal year 2008 budget request, I would like
to address the status of NASA's plans for the use of fiscal year 2007
funding. On February 15, 2007, the President signed into law a joint
resolution stipulating fiscal year 2007 funding levels for NASA and
other Federal agencies. This appropriation represents a funding level
that is $545 million below the President's fiscal year 2007 request.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request could not possibly factor the
impact of this reduced level from the fiscal year 2007 request for
NASA's carefully-considered multi-year programs, and thus, several
programs in the fiscal year 2008 budget request will be impacted. The
fiscal year 2007 appropriation further specifies funding levels in
human spaceflight of that are $677 million below the request--$577
million of that from exploration systems. This reduction from the
requested level may significantly impact our ability to safely and
effectively transition from the shuttle to the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. It will have serious effects on
many people, projects, and programs this year, and for the longer term.
As I noted during last year's congressional hearings on NASA's fiscal
year 2007 budget request, we have a carefully balanced set of
priorities to execute on behalf of our Nation. So as a result of these
funding levels that are less than the fiscal year 2007 request, NASA is
carefully assessing the implications to overall exploration priorities
and milestones, and will present detailed impacts after a full analysis
is complete. The initial NASA operating plan for fiscal year 2007,
which, we are endeavoring to finalize as soon as practicable, will
reflect the impacts of less funding than planned and the requisite
decisions. As always, we are here to carry out our Nation's civil space
and aeronautics programs with the resources made available by the
Congress. All of our programs proceed in a ``go-as-we-can-afford-to-
pay'' manner; so if we receive less funding than requested, we will
adjust our pace. Our stakeholders have my commitment to continue to
keep them informed as to what I believe is the best approach to
carrying out NASA's space and aeronautics research missions with the
resources provided. In this determination, I will be guided by the NASA
authorization acts, annual appropriations acts, presidential policy,
and the decadal survey priorities of the National Academy of Sciences.
If we determine that there is an agency objective that we will be
unable to meet, I will inform our agency's stakeholders, including this
subcommittee.
Highlights of the NASA Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for NASA is a carefully
considered and balanced request formulated over many months with the
White House. Unfortunately, the Congress had not completed action on
the fiscal year 2007 budget at the time the fiscal year 2008 budget was
being finalized, so the impact of the final fiscal year 2007
appropriation outcome is not accounted for in NASA's fiscal year 2008
budget request. The fiscal year 2008 budget request weaves together the
Nation's priorities in space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research that will help fuel this Nation's future, creating
new opportunities for scientific benefit, economic growth, national
security, and international cooperation.
The greatest challenge NASA faces is safely flying the Space
Shuttle to assemble the International Space Station (ISS) prior to
retiring the shuttle in 2010, while also bringing new U.S. human
spaceflight capabilities on-line soon thereafter. We must understand
that, given proper goals, human spaceflight is a strategic capability
for this Nation, and we must not allow it to slip away. In January, we
remembered those whom we have lost in the exploration of space. In the
aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, President Bush addressed the NASA
workforce, saying, ``In your grief, you are responding as your friends
would have wished--with focus, professionalism, and unbroken faith in
the mission of this agency.'' We must commit ourselves to the focus of
professionalism and unbroken faith every day in order to carry out the
tasks before us.
In analyzing not only the root causes, but also the systemic
reasons behind the Columbia accident, the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) made critical observations that guided the
formulation of our present civil space policy. I fear that with the
passage of time and the press of other concerns, we may be losing sight
of some of these principles, so let me reiterate some of them here
today. First, the CAIB noted that, ``The U.S. civilian space effort has
moved forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision.''
Second, ``because the shuttle is now an aging system but still
developmental in character, it is in the Nation's interest to replace
the shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting
humans to and from Earth orbit.'' Third, ``the previous attempts to
develop a replacement vehicle for the aging shuttle represent a failure
of national leadership.'' And finally, the board noted that ``this
approach can only be successful: if it is sustained over the decade; if
by the time a decision to develop a new vehicle is made there is a
clearer idea of how the new transportation system fits into the
Nation's overall plans for space; and if the U.S. Government is willing
at the time a development decision is made to commit the substantial
resources required to implement it.''
Since then, the President, the Congress and NASA have charted a new
course in U.S. civil space policy that addresses all of these points,
and the President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget reaffirms that commitment
with the necessary funds for the space shuttle and the ISS. NASA will
continue forward at the best possible pace with the development of the
Orion and Ares I crew vehicles. However, due to the cumulative effect
of previously underestimated costs to retire/transition the space
shuttle and support the International Space Station, the reduction from
the fiscal year 2007 request reflected in the fiscal year 2007
continuing resolution, and the maturing design and integrated flight
tests baselined for the Constellation program, it is unlikely that NASA
will be able to bring these new exploration capabilities online by
2014. Full funding of NASA's fiscal year 2008 exploration systems
request is critical to ensuring the gap between retirement of the space
shuttle and the new U.S. human spaceflight capability does not grow
longer. If the gap in our human spaceflight capability extends even
further than already planned, I believe our Nation will be ceding
leadership in human spaceflight at a time when China and Russia have
their own indigenous capabilities and India is developing its own
capabilities. If we do not quickly come to grips with this issue,
America may have a prolonged gap between the end of the shuttle program
and the beginning of Orion and Ares I operational capability, a gap
similar to the one that occurred from 1975 to 1981 when our Nation
transitioned from Apollo to the space shuttle.
NASA has a lot of hard work ahead of it and many major milestones
this year and next. The transition from the space shuttle to the Orion
and Ares launch vehicles over the next several years must be carefully
managed, and we must be focused, professional and committed to our
mission. This is NASA's greatest challenge, and I ask the
subcommittee's help in meeting it.
In the important area of Earth science, we recently received the
first-ever Decadal Survey for Earth science from the National Academy
of Sciences, which NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
requested in 2003. As the first of its kind, the survey has drawn
considerable attention, and we will observe the programmatic priorities
for Earth Science which it advocates. In addressing the survey's Earth
science priorities, and consistent with ensuring that NASA maintains a
balanced portfolio of science as directed by the NASA Authorization Act
of 2005 (Public Law 109-155), we have added funding to the Global
Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, the follow-on to the highly
successful Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), to improve our
ability to keep this mission on schedule. Our plan is to launch the
first core satellite for the GPM mission not later than 2013, followed
by the second Constellation spacecraft the following year. The fiscal
year 2008 budget request also augments funding for the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission (LDCM) and Glory missions in order to help keep
those projects on schedule. Within planetary sciences, funding has been
identified for Lunar science research project beginning in fiscal year
2008 to leverage the many opportunities for payloads on NASA and other
nations' lunar spacecraft, such as India's Chandrayaan-1, as well as to
analyze the science data from these missions, including NASA's Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter. In 2008, we will launch a host of Heliophysics
missions, many with international and interagency partners, to analyze
the effects of solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and galactic
cosmic rays. In Astrophysics, the final Hubble servicing mission is
currently planned for a space shuttle flight in September 2008. And, as
I advised the Congress and the science community last summer, NASA has
reinstated the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)
mission. Though we know of no technical showstoppers in regard to the
airworthiness of the aircraft or operation of the telescope, this
program has some remaining hurdles to overcome and so remains subject
to a management review later this spring. NASA will launch or
participate in seven science missions in fiscal year 2007, followed by
10 missions in fiscal year 2008, resulting in many new Earth and space
science discoveries in the years ahead.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request increases the budget profile
for Aeronautics Research over the President's fiscal year 2007 request,
aligns our aeronautics activities with the President's recently issued
Aeronautics Research and Development Policy, and advances U.S.
technical leadership in aeronautics. NASA has made significant progress
in reformulating its approach to aeronautics research by collaborating
with the broad research community including industry, academia, and
other government agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). Through these changes, NASA
will help ensure that America continues to lead the way in aeronautics
research.
NASA continues to monitor and manage our ``uncovered capacity''
(employees not directly assigned to specific projects and programs). A
little over 18 months ago, nearly 3,000 of NASA's 19,000 employees were
designated as ``uncovered capacity.'' Today, largely with the work
defined in the Constellation program, we have greatly reduced that
problem to manageable levels. As of February 2007, we have fewer than
200 uncovered capacity employees in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
2008. More importantly, many of our best engineers are working
diligently on the great challenges before us. Every NASA center is now
vested in our space exploration mission. While we are proud of the
progress that has been made, significant human capital challenges
remain. These include matching available skills with the important work
to be done, managing attrition, retraining and hiring, and improving
our workforce planning for future years in fiscal year 2009 and beyond.
To address these challenges and any potential impacts resulting from
the fiscal year 2007 funding reductions, we have established a new
intra-agency Workforce Planning Technical Team.
In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2007, the agency revised
overhead allocations to simplify how we manage under full cost
accounting. These changes will ensure a uniform cost rate for all NASA
civil servants across the agency's government field centers. All
changes are revenue-neutral to programs and projects; none of NASA's
missions gain or lose funding as a result of this accounting change. At
first glance, this accounting change appears to reduce the Aeronautics
Research budget because so much of that work is done at our smaller
research centers. However, in actuality, NASA's direct spending for
Aeronautics Research has increased in the fiscal year 2008 budget
runout by $205 million through fiscal year 2011 compared to the fiscal
year 2007 budget runout.
Beyond our budget request, NASA is beginning to transition the
workforce, infrastructure, and equipment from the space shuttle to new
exploration systems. Many of our most experienced people will be
considering retirement between now and 2010. We will need the means to
manage this attrition in a targeted manner to achieve better alignment
of the workforce with our mission without creating unwanted losses and
skills imbalances. One tool we may be using is the authority for the
agency to be able to re-employ selected retirees without an offset to
their annuity--thus giving them an incentive to see a project or
program to completion. To assist employees with transition to the
private sector, and to ease that upheaval, another tool would authorize
NASA to continue their coverage under the Federal Employees Health
Insurance for 1 year after departure.
We will also need better tools to manage the transition of our
facilities. The agency is proposing slight changes and expansion to
existing authority to permit leasing of underutilized facilities and
related equipment. The agency would retain the proceeds of those leases
to be deposited in a NASA capital asset account and invested in
activities to improve and sustain our facilities and infrastructure. We
plan to discuss the details of these legislative requests with members
of Congress in the weeks and months ahead.
The remainder of my testimony outlines the fiscal year 2008 budget
request for NASA in greater detail.
Science Mission Directorate
This past year was truly remarkable for science discovery about the
Earth, Sun, solar system, and universe. NASA was responsible for 11
percent of Science News magazine's top stories (covering all fields of
science) for 2006, which is an all-time record in the 34 years of
tracking this metric. NASA's findings ranged from new observations of
familiar phenomena like hurricanes, thunderstorms, and rainfall, to the
identification of 16 new extra-solar planets orbiting distant stars
near the center of our galaxy. As NASA continues to add observations
from long-lived assets such as the Spirit and Opportunity Mars
Exploration Rovers, it continues to successfully develop and launch the
next generation of missions and to support a vigorous scientific
community.
In 2006, NASA launched four new science missions, one technology
demonstration mission, and partnered with other Federal and
international agencies to launch three other science and technology
missions, as well as the GOES-O satellite, to bring the current total
number of operational science missions to 52. In January 2006, we
launched the New Horizons spacecraft to the planet Pluto. Scheduled to
arrive at Pluto in 2015, the spacecraft made its closest approach to
Jupiter in late February. With the April 2006 launch of the CloudSat
and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations
(CALIPSO) spacecraft, NASA added to the ``A-train'' of satellites
flying in close proximity around Earth to gain a better understanding
of key factors related to climate change. In October 2006, NASA's twin
Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatories mission (STEREO) spacecraft
were launched to help researchers construct the first-ever 3-
dimensional views of the Sun. Although the two spacecraft will not
return images until later this year, initial results from STEREO have
provided us with an unprecedented look at solar activity. On February
17, 2007, we launched five Time History of Events and Macroscale
Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) microsatellites to study the
Earth's magnetosphere, and we are on track to launch the Dawn mission
to main belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter and the Phoenix Mars
mission later this year.
NASA's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $5.5 billion for the
agency's science portfolio. This represents an increase of $49.3
million (or 1 percent) over the fiscal year 2007 request and it will
enable NASA to launch or partner on 10 new missions, operate and
provide ground support for more than 50 spacecraft, and fund scientific
research based on the data returned from these missions. For fiscal
year 2008, NASA separated the Earth-Sun System theme into two themes:
Earth Science and Heliophysics, and programmatic responsibility for
studies of Near Earth Objects is transferred to the Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate.
The Earth science budget requests $1.5 billion--an increase of
$27.7 million over the fiscal year 2007 request--to better understand
the Earth's atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and
biosphere as a single connected system. This request includes
additional funding for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)
mission to improve schedule assurance in response to the high priority
placed on GPM in the Decadal Survey. As the follow-on to the highly
successful Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, NASA's plans to launch
GPM's first Core satellite no later than 2013, followed by the second
Constellation spacecraft the following year. The Earth science budget
also includes increased funding for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission
and Glory in order to help keep them on their schedules, and provides
funds for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) to reflect
instrument availability and launch delays. Funds are requested for
continued development and implementation of the Ocean Surface
Topography Mission to launch in 2008, the Aquarius mission to measure
the ocean's surface salinity to launch in 2009, and the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory mission planned for launch in 2008. NASA will continue to
contribute to the President's Climate Change Research Initiative by
collecting data sets and developing predictive capabilities that will
enable advanced assessments of the causes and consequences of global
climate change. Over the coming months, NASA will evaluate
opportunities for implementing the recommendations of the National
Research Council's Earth Science Decadal Survey and responding to
challenges to the continuity of climate measurements resulting from the
Nunn-McCurdy recertification of the NPOESS program.
The Heliophysics budget request of $1.1 billion will support 14
operational missions to understand the Sun and its effects on Earth,
the solar system, and the space environmental conditions that will be
experienced by astronauts, and to demonstrate technologies that can
improve future operational systems. During fiscal year 2008, the
Explorer Program will launch the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX)
mission, focused on the detection of the very edge of our solar system,
and the Coupled Ion-Neural Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) Mission of
Opportunity conducted by the University of Texas. The Solar Dynamics
Observatory (SDO) to study the Sun's magnetic field will complete
launch readiness milestones in fiscal year 2008 and is presently
scheduled for launch in August of 2008. The Geospace Radiation Belt
Storm Probes (RBSP) mission, presently in formulation, will undergo a
preliminary design review and a non-advocate review in fiscal year 2008
in preparation for entering development in early fiscal year 2009. RBSP
will improve the understanding of how solar storms interact with
Earth's Van Allen radiation belts. While the ST-7 and ST-8 missions are
on track for launches in 2009, the New Millennium ST-9 mission, along
with follow-on missions, is delayed.
The planetary science budget request of $1.4 billion will advance
scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of
extraterrestrial life, and prepare for human exploration. NASA will get
an early start on Lunar science when the Discovery Program's Moon
Mineralogy Mapper (M3) launches aboard India's Chandrayaan-1 mission in
March 2008, along with the Mini-RF, a technology demonstration payload,
supported by NASA's Exploration and Space Operations Mission
Directorates and the Department of Defense, which may glean water in
the Moon's polar regions. In addition, the budget requests $351 million
from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2012 for new Lunar science
research, including missions of opportunity, data archiving, and
research. The budget supports the Mars Exploration Program by providing
for a mission every 26 months, including the Phoenix spacecraft,
scheduled for launch in 2007, and the Mars Science Laboratory, with a
launch scheduled for 2009. The Discovery Program's Dawn Mission is
scheduled to launch later this year, and the Mercury Surface, Space
Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft is already
on its way to Mercury. Three Discovery Mission proposals and three
Missions of Opportunity were selected in 2006 for Phase A studies, and
the Discovery Program will invite proposals for additional new missions
in 2008. With the New Horizons spacecraft continuing on its way to
Pluto, the New Frontiers Program's Juno Mission will undergo a
preliminary design review and a non-advocate review in fiscal year 2008
in preparation for entering development. The New Frontiers Program will
release its third Announcement of Opportunity (AO) in late 2008.
The Astrophysics budget requests $1.6 billion to operate NASA's
astronomical observatories, including the Hubble Space Telescope (HST),
Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and Spitzer Space Telescope, and to build
more powerful instruments to peer deeper into the cosmos. HST is
scheduled for a final servicing mission in September 2008 using the
space shuttle Atlantis. Along with service life extension efforts, two
new instruments will be installed during the servicing mission that are
expected to dramatically improve performance and enable further
discoveries, including enabling some science observations that have
been affected by the recent failure of the Advanced Camera for Surveys.
After the servicing mission, HST will once again have six fully
operational instruments (including a suite of cameras and spectrographs
that will have about 10 times the capability of older instruments) as
well as new hardware capable of supporting at least another 5 years of
world-class space science. The ESA Herschel and Planck missions, both
of which include contributions from NASA, will launch in fiscal year
2008 aboard an ESA-supplied Ariane-5. Kepler instrument and spacecraft
integration and test will be completed in preparation for launch in
November 2008, to determine the frequency of potentially habitable
planets. The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) will launch
in fiscal year 2008 to begin a 5-year mission mapping the gamma-ray sky
and investigating gamma-ray bursts. The James Webb Space Telescope will
undergo preliminary design review and a non-advocate review in fiscal
year 2008, in preparation for entering development. The SOFIA
observatory has been reinstated. Though we know of no technical
showstoppers in regard to the airworthiness of the aircraft or
operation of the telescope, this program has some remaining hurdles to
overcome and so remains subject to a management review later this
spring chaired by the NASA associate administrator. The SOFIA program
baseline will be finalized at that time.
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate (ESMD) is $3.9 billion to support continued
development of new U.S. human spaceflight capabilities and supporting
technologies, and to enable sustained and affordable human space
exploration after the space shuttle is retired in 2010. With this
budget, ESMD will continue to develop our next-generation crew
exploration vehicle, while also providing research and developing
technologies for the longer-term development of a sustained human
presence on the Moon. However, due to the cumulative effect of
previously underestimated costs to retire/transition the space shuttle
and support the International Space Station, the reduction from the
fiscal year 2007 request reflected in the fiscal year 2007 continuing
resolution, and the maturing design and integrated flight tests
baselined for the Constellation program, it is unlikely that NASA will
be able to bring these new exploration capabilities online by 2014.
ESMD will also continue to work with other nations and the commercial
sector to leverage its investments and identify opportunities for
specific collaboration on lunar data and lunar surface activities. New
human spaceflight development of this magnitude, such as the Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle, occurs once in a generation. The next 5 years are
a critical period in our Nation's space flight efforts.
The Constellation program includes the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle; Ares I, a highly reliable crew launch vehicle; Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstrations of cargo and crew
transport to the International Space Station; Ares V, a heavy-lift
launch vehicle; spacesuits and tools required by the flight crews and;
associated ground and mission operations infrastructure to support
either lunar and/or initial low-Earth orbit (LEO) missions.
For fiscal year 2008, pending a full analysis of the fiscal year
2007 budget impacts, ESMD is on track to maintain its commitments for
Ares I and Orion, and to continue meeting major milestones. This year
Constellation will continue to mature and develop overall. Formulation
of the Constellation elements will continue, leading to the preliminary
design review in 2008, at which time the program will be baselined.
NASA will conduct an update for the overall Constellation Systems
Requirements Review (SRR) in 2007 after the completion of all the
Program Element SRRs--the Orion Project recently completed its SRR on
March 1, 2007. ESMD released the Ares I Upper Stage Request for
Proposals (RFP) on February 23, 2007. The RFP for the Ares I Avionics
Ring is scheduled for release in May 2007, with selection and contract
award scheduled for November 2007.
Facility, equipment, and personnel transitions from space shuttle
to Constellation will be the major emphasis of the fiscal year 2009
budget process. NASA transition activities are focused on managing the
evolution from current operations of the space shuttle to future
operations of Constellation and emerging commercial services, in a
safe, successful and smooth process. This joint effort between the
Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) and ESMD includes the
utilization and disposition of resources, including real and personal
property, personnel, and processes, to leverage existing shuttle and
International Space Station assets for NASA's future exploration
activities. Formalized transition boards are working to achieve this
outcome. A Human Spaceflight Transition Plan was developed in 2006;
updates are in work, and metrics for the plan are being refined and
will be implemented in 2007.
In August 2006, NASA signed Space Act Agreements with Space
Exploration Technologies Corporation, of El Segundo, California, and
Rocketplane-Kistler, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to develop and
demonstrate COTS that could open new markets and pave the way for
commercial providers to launch and deliver crew and cargo to the ISS.
The Space Act Agreements establish milestones and identify objective
criteria to assess their progress throughout Phase 1 of the
demonstrations. In the fiscal year 2008 budget, funding for the
purchase of crew and cargo transportation services, either from
international partners or preferably from commercial providers, is
transferred from ESMD to SOMD. COTS demonstration funding remains in
ESMD to better exploit potential synergies with the Constellation
Program.
With activities in the Advanced Capabilities program, NASA seeks to
understand the space environment as it relates to human performance by
addressing respective recommendations from the Exploration Systems
Architecture Study that was conducted 2005. This included refocusing
biomedical research and human life-support activities through new
milestones and requirements to target the timely delivery of research
products. Accordingly, ESMD created two new programs under Advanced
Capabilities: the Human Research Program (HRP) to study and mitigate
risks to astronaut health and performance and the Exploration
Technology Development Program (ETDP) to enable future exploration
missions and reduce cost and risk. Plans for 2008 include:
--Testing of prototype ablative heat shield materials, low-impact
docking systems, and landing attenuation systems;
--testing of advanced environmental control systems on the ISS;
--developing a lightweight composite command module test article for
the Orion;
--conducting studies to assess risks of long-term radiation exposure
and continuing the use of the ISS as a testbed for studying
human health and safety in space;
--spacecraft integration and testing in preparation for the Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launch in October 2008;
--next-generation spacesuit capable of supporting exploration; and
--developing jointly with the U.S. Air Force the RS-68 engine that
will be used on the Ares V.
Finally, the LRO and the Lunar Crater Observatory Sensing Satellite
(LCROSS) to the Moon is planned to be launched in early fiscal year
2008. These dual-manifested spacecraft have completed critical design
review and are currently in development. The science yielded from these
missions will enable future outpost site selection and new information
about the deep craters at the lunar poles. The LRO/LCROSS missions
represent NASA's first steps in returning to the Moon.
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
In 2006, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
conducted a significant restructuring of its aeronautics program,
allowing NASA to pursue high-quality, innovative, and integrated
research that will yield revolutionary tools, concepts, and
technologies to enable a safer, more flexible, environmentally
friendly, and efficient national air transportation system. As such,
ARMD's research will continue to play a vital role in supporting NASA's
human and robotic space activities. The reshaped Aeronautics Program
content and direction is consistent with the National Aeronautics
Research and Development Policy, signed by the President on December
20, 2006.
A primary goal across all of the programs in ARMD is to establish
strong partnerships involving NASA, other government agencies,
academia, and industry in order to enable significant advancement in
our Nation's aeronautical expertise. Because these partnerships are so
important, NASA has put many mechanisms in place to engage academia and
industry, including industry working groups and technical interchange
meetings at the program and project level, space act agreements for
cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research Announcement (NRA)
process that provides for full and open competition for the best and
most promising research ideas. During 2006, ARMD's NRA solicitation
resulted in the selection of 138 proposals for negotiation for award
from 72 different organizations representing 29 different States plus
the District of Columbia. NASA's fiscal year 2008 budget request for
aeronautics includes $51 million for NRA awards.
In fiscal year 2008, the President's budget for NASA requests $554
million for aeronautics research. This budget reflects full cost
simplification, which significantly reduces the center overhead and
infrastructure allocated to the aeronautics programs.
NASA's Airspace Systems Program (ASP) has partnered with the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to help develop concepts,
capabilities and technologies that will lead to significant
enhancements in the capacity, efficiency and flexibility of the
National Airspace System (NAS). Such improvements are critical to meet
the Nation's airspace and airports requirements for decades to come. In
fiscal year 2008, NASA's budget request would provide $98.1 million for
ASP to conduct further research in operational concepts and human-in-
the-loop simulation modeling that supports advancements in automated
separation assurance capabilities. In addition, ASP will pursue
enhanced development of airport surface movement trajectory models to
provide a basis for optimized use of super density airports, integrated
airport clusters, and terminals where demand for runways is high. Last
year, ASP took an important step toward this goal by completing
development of a system-wide operational concept that provides a
detailed description of future NAS capacity enhancements while
assessing the benefits of such system improvements. Key to the analysis
of the operational concepts was program-developed tools such as the
Airspace Concepts Evaluation System and the Future Air Traffic
Management Concepts Evaluation Tool, both of which have successfully
transitioned from NASA to the Federal Aviation Administration and the
JPDO.
NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) conducts research in
the engineering and scientific disciplines that enable the design of
vehicles that fly through any atmosphere at any speed. The fiscal year
2008 budget request, amounting to $293.4 million, will enable
significant advances in the hypersonics, supersonics, subsonic fixed
wing, and subsonic rotary wing projects that make up the FAP. These
projects focus on creating innovative solutions for the technical
challenges of the future: increasing performance (range, speed,
payload, fuel efficiency) while meeting stringent noise and emissions
constraints; alleviating environmental and congestion problems of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) through the use of
new aircraft and rotorcraft concepts; and, facilitating access to space
and re-entry into planetary atmospheres. A wide variety of cross-
cutting research topics are being pursued across the speed regimes with
emphasis on physics-based multidisciplinary analysis and design,
aerothermodynamics, materials and structures, propulsion, aero-servo-
elasticity, thermal protection systems, advanced control methods, and
computational and experimental techniques. A number of key activities
are planned for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 including the
launch of a suborbital rocket to conduct flight experiments in
hypersonic boundary layer transition and re-entry shapes, the flight
test of scale models of the X-48B Blended Wing-Body concept to assess
this advanced unconventional airframe configuration for its potential
to decrease aircraft noise while also improving performance, the
evaluation of radical new concepts for variable-speed rotor
technologies that can result in highly improved performance, and the
evaluation of actively-controlled inlets for supersonic transports.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for NASA's Aviation Safety
Program (AvSP) is $74.1 million. The four projects within the program
(Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck, Integrated Resilient Aircraft
Control, Aircraft Aging and Durability, and Integrated Vehicle Health
Management) will develop cutting-edge tools, methods, and technologies
with close coordination among them to improve the intrinsic safety
attributes of current and future aircraft that will operate in the
NGATS. In fiscal year 2008, the program will complete a study of human-
automation technology that will improve safety during approach and
landing operations by allowing for active operator assistance that
maintains appropriate levels of workload and will be conducted to
evaluate neural networks for direct adaptive control that will maximize
adaptation to simulated in-flight failures while minimizing adverse
interactions. At the same time, onboard sensor technology will be
developed and validated to achieve significant improvement in measuring
atmospheric water content that will improve the ability to detect the
onset of potential icing hazards. Challenges related to aircraft aging
and durability will also be addressed by developing models capable of
simulating the initiation and propagation of minute cracks in metallic
materials.
Finally, NASA's Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) will continue to
safeguard the strategic availability of a critical suite of aeronautics
test facilities that are deemed necessary to meet agency and national
aeronautics needs. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ATP is $88.4
million, which will enable strategic utilization, operations,
maintenance and investment decisions for major wind tunnel/ground test
facilities at Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center and Langley
Research Center and for the Western Aeronautical Test Range support
aircraft and test bed aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center. In
fiscal year 2006, NASA implemented procedures to ensure affordable and
competitive pricing of its aeronautics facilities for use by other
parties, including industry and university researchers. In fiscal year
2008, ATP plans to continue ensuring competitive prices for ATP
facilities, reducing a backlog of maintenance issues and investing in
advanced technologies such as installing consistent angle of attack
instrumentation at the research centers.
Space Operations Mission Directorate
This was an extraordinary year for the space shuttle and
International Space Station (ISS) programs. NASA celebrated
Independence Day 2006 by launching space shuttle Discovery on the STS-
121 mission. The second of two test flights (the first was STS-114 in
July/August 2005), STS-121 helped validate the improvements made to the
space shuttle system since the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003.
The mission also marked the return of a complement of three crewmembers
to the ISS. The space shuttle Atlantis (STS-115), which launched on
September 9, marked a return to sustained space shuttle operations and
placed NASA on track to completing assembly of the ISS by 2010. STS-115
delivered the critical P3/P4 truss to the ISS, which will provide a
quarter of the power services needed to operate the completed research
facility. The last flight in December 2006, STS-116, was devoted
primarily to deactivating the electrical power systems on the U.S.
segment of the ISS and making a series of electrical and coolant
connections between the P3/P4 truss segment and the rest of the
station. To do this, flight controllers at the mission control centers
in Houston and Moscow uplinked over 17,900 commands to the ISS during
the mission--all without a single unplanned or command error. STS-116
crewmember Robert Curbeam also set a record for the most spacewalks
ever conducted by an astronaut on a single space shuttle mission, with
four excursions totaling over 25 hours.
Operational activities onboard the ISS have continued into 2007,
with a series of spacewalks that reconfigured the thermal system on the
station and prepared us for future assembly tasks. The station is now
able to provide additional power to the space shuttle, allowing two
extra docked days, and we have connected permanent systems in place of
temporary ones. The sequence of three complex spacewalks within 9 days
also demonstrated capabilities we will need later this year to fully
install Node 2 following its delivery on STS-120.
These mission achievements reflect the NASA team's dedication to
safely and successfully flying out the space shuttle program and
meeting our Nation's commitments to our international partners. The
program's successes also led to the decision in October 2006 to move
forward with plans for a final servicing mission to the Hubble Space
Telescope (HST). Following an extensive review by the relevant NASA
offices of all safety and technical issues associated with conducting
such a mission, it became clear that an HST servicing mission could be
carried out effectively and safely. While there is an inherent risk in
all spaceflight activities, the desire to preserve a truly
international asset like the HST makes doing this mission the right
course of action.
The space shuttle fiscal year 2008 budget request of $4.01 billion
would provide for five shuttle flights, including four ISS assembly
flights as well as the HST servicing mission. The ISS assembly flights
include the launch of major research facility modules from the European
Space Agency and Japan. The Canadian Special Purpose Dexterous
Manipulator robotic system will also be flown in 2008. These flights
are a major step towards fulfilling U.S. commitments to NASA's
international partners as specified in the ISS agreements and the
Vision for Space Exploration.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $2.24 billion for ISS
activities. NASA has consulted with our international partners on the
configuration of the ISS, and is working closely with them to determine
the detailed plans for logistics required during and after assembly.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request provides the necessary resources to
purchase Soyuz crew transport and rescue for U.S. astronauts as well as
progress vehicle logistics support for the ISS from the Russian Space
Agency.
As the shuttle approaches its retirement, the ISS Program intends
to use alternative cargo and crew transportation services from
commercial industry. Once a capability is demonstrated in phase 1 of
the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Space Act
Agreements, NASA plans to purchase cargo delivery services
competitively in phase 2 and will decide whether to pursue crew
demonstrations. In the fiscal year 2008 budget, funding for the
purchase of crew and cargo transportation services, either from
international partners or preferably from commercial providers, is
transferred from the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to the
Space Operations Mission Directorate. One item of significance in the
fiscal year 2008 budget runout, especially in the out-years, is that it
allows for increases to our previously estimated costs for purchasing
commercial cargo and crew services to support the ISS, assuming these
commercial services are successfully demonstrated and are cost-
effective. Should costs for those services be greater than what is
presently budgeted, NASA has accepted a management challenge to scale
back on our space operations costs and will curtail some of our robotic
lunar exploration or long-term exploration technology development in
the out-years. COTS demonstration funding remains in ESMD to better
exploit potential synergies with the Constellation Program.
The space shuttle program's highest priority is to safely complete
the mission manifest by the end of fiscal year 2010, using as few
flights as possible. Working through formalized transition control
board processes, the space shuttle program will also play a key role in
coordinating the smooth transition of space shuttle assets and
capabilities to the next generation of exploration systems without
compromising the safety of ongoing flight operations. The greatest
challenge NASA faces is safely flying the space shuttle to assemble the
ISS prior to retiring the shuttle in 2010, while also bringing new U.S.
human spaceflight capabilities on-line soon thereafter. There are a
number of major transition milestones set for fiscal year 2008,
including the transition of one of the four high bays in the vehicle
assembly building and launch pad 39B to the Constellation Systems
Program. Space shuttle Atlantis may also be retired in fiscal year 2008
after the HST SM-4 mission and its systems and parts would be used to
support the remaining space shuttle orbiters, Discovery and Endeavour,
during the program's last 2 years of operations. The fiscal year 2008
budget request reflects the current assessment of costs to retire the
space shuttle. Over the next year, NASA will develop additional detail
and refine our cost estimates for the transition.
The fiscal year 2008 budget also provides for the procurement of
two additional Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS)
satellites to replenish the Constellation. NASA projects that the
availability of aging TDRSS satellites to support overall user demand
will be reduced by 2009 and depleted by 2015. In order to continue to
support all users, NASA must begin the procurement process immediately,
with planned launches in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. By
replenishing the satellites, NASA will be able to meet overall user
demand through 2016. The Space Operations Mission Directorate has
partnered with non-NASA users to provide a proportionate investment in
the replacement capabilities.
Cross-Agency Support Programs
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for activities within the
Cross-Agency Support Programs (CASP)--education, advanced business
systems, innovative partnerships programs, and Shared Capabilities
Assets Program--is $498.2 million. Within this amount, $34.3 million is
for the Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP), which is designed to
ensure that critical capabilities and assets (e.g. arc jets, wind
tunnels, super computing facilities, rocket propulsion testing, etc.)
required agency-wide are available to missions when needed. The fiscal
year 2008 budget request for Advanced Business Systems, comprising the
Integrated Enterprise Management Program (IEMP), is $103.1 million.
Fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 funding will support IEMP in
implementing capabilities that improve NASA's tracking and
accountability of its property, plant, and equipment; integrate human
capital information, providing employees and management with new,
secure tools for accessing personnel data, and planning and budgeting
NASA's workforce; and, provide more relevant and accurate financial
information in support to NASA's programs and projects. This funding
also supports ongoing operations and maintenance of NASA's financial
system and other agency-wide business systems.
For NASA's education activities, the fiscal year 2008 budget
request totals $153.7 million and sustains our ongoing commitment to
excellence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
to ensure that our agency is equipped with the right workforce to
implement the Vision for Space Exploration. NASA will continue the
tradition of investing in education and supporting educators who play a
key role in preparing, inspiring, exciting, encouraging, and nurturing
the youth who will manage and lead the laboratories and research
centers of tomorrow. NASA education is committed to three primary
objectives to help improve the state of STEM education in our country:
strengthen the Nation's and NASA's future workforce; attract and retain
students in the STEM discipline and; engage the American people in
NASA's missions through partnerships and alliances.
The Innovative Partnerships Programs (IPP) provides leveraged
technology investments, dual-use technology-related partnerships, and
technology solutions for NASA. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for
IPP activities is $198.1 million. The IPP implements NASA's Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs that provide the high-technology small
business sector with an opportunity to develop technology for NASA.
Recently, NASA has made some changes to the management structure of
these two programs to better enable technology infusion and to increase
the efficiency of the operations. IPP also manages the Centennial
Challenges Program. NASA has already benefited from the introduction of
new sources of innovation and technology development even though the
program is relatively new and no prizes have yet been awarded. In
addition, ongoing and future prize challenges will continue to inspire
brilliant young minds.
conclusion
NASA has many challenges ahead of us, but we are on track and
making progress in managing these challenges. The fiscal year 2008
budget request demonstrates commitment to our Nation's leadership in
space and aeronautics research, and while we may face a significant
funding reduction for fiscal year 2007, we will carry on, though not at
the pace we had previously hoped.
I ask your help to ensure this Nation maintains a human spaceflight
capability. Without stable funding as requested in this budget, we face
the very real possibility of allowing that capability to slip away for
the foreseeable future--even as other nations continue to develop
similar capabilities.
I also need your help to effectively transition key elements of our
space shuttle workforce, infrastructure, and equipment to our Nation's
exploration objectives. The provisions I referenced earlier, as well as
stable funding, will help ensure we preserve a critical and unique
industrial base capability that has allowed the United States to lead
the world in space exploration.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be please to respond to any questions that you may have.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
[Budget authority, dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
By Mission Directorate year 2007 year 2008 year 2009 year 2010 year 2011 year 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, Aeronautics and Exploration:
Science:
Earth Science........................ $1,469.6 $1,497.3 $1,539.7 $1,500.7 $1,411.2 $1,353.2
Heliophysics......................... $1,028.1 $1,057.2 $1,034.5 $1,107.1 $1,241.2 $1,307.5
Planetary Science.................... $1,406.1 $1,395.8 $1,676.9 $1,723.9 $1,738.3 $1,748.2
Astrophysics......................... $1,563.0 $1,565.8 $1,304.2 $1,268.9 $1,266.2 $1,393.8
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science.................. $5,466.8 $5,516.1 $5,555.3 $5,600.6 $5,656.9 $5,802.7
==================================================================
Exploration Systems:
Constellation Systems................ $3,232.5 $3,068.0 $3,451.2 $3,784.9 $7,666.0 $7,993.0
Advanced Capabilities................ $920.0 $855.8 $861.6 $973.0 $1,059.1 $1,083.9
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Exploration Systems...... $4,152.5 $3,923.8 $4,312.8 $4,757.8 $8,725.2 $9,076.8
==================================================================
Aeronautics Research: Aeronautics $529.3 $554.0 $546.7 $545.3 $549.8 $554.7
Technology..............................
==================================================================
Cross-Agency Support Programs:
Education............................ $167.4 $153.7 $152.8 $152.7 $149.8 $149.6
Advanced Business Systems............ $97.4 $103.1 $69.4 $71.6 $67.6 $67.5
Innovative Partnerships Program...... $215.1 $198.1 $197.2 $199.8 $200.0 $200.0
Shared Capability Assets Pro- gram.. $22.1 $34.3 $34.2 $36.2 $37.3 $37.2
Continuing Resolution Rate \1\....... ($555.60) ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Cross-Agency Support $502.0 $489.2 $453.5 $460.4 $454.7 $454.4
Programs..........................
==================================================================
Total, Science, Aeronautics and $10,650.6 $10,483.1 $10,868.4 $11,364.2 $15,386.5 $15,888.6
Exploration.......................
==================================================================
Exploration Capabilities:
Space Operations:
Space Shuttle........................ $4,017.6 $4,007.5 $3,650.9 $3,634.4 $116.2 .........
International Space Station.......... $1,762.6 $2,238.6 $2,515.1 $2,609.2 $2,547.5 $2,600.8
Space and Flight Support............. $328.1 $545.7 $544.3 $382.0 $372.9 $377.2
Continuing Resolution Rate \1\....... ($40.9) ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Space Operations............ $6,108.3 $6,791.7 $6,710.3 $6,625.7 $3,036.6 $2.978.0
==================================================================
Inspector General............................ $33.5 $34.6 $35.5 $36.4 $37.3 $38.3
Continuing Resolution Rate \1\........... ($2.0) ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. $16,792.3 $17,309.4 $17,612.2 $18,026.3 $18,460.4 $18,905.0
==================================================================
Year to Year Change \2\ (percent)............ .......... 3.1 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2007 column represents the 2007 President's Budget in full-cost simplification and shown in the
new Theme structure.
\2\ Modification to fiscal year 2007 if current continuing resolution is extended for entire year, and assuming
$126.1 million institutional mission support transfers from Exploration Capabilities to Science, Aeronautics
and Exploration not included in totals.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Senator Mikulski. I have also read your written oral
testimony particularly, and I appreciate, in the interest of
time, pages 4, 5, and 6, which I think go to the meat of the
issues around the continuing resolution, the way forward,
flashing yellow lights about what will be done when, and
workforce impact issues, which I know are of keen impact to not
only those who are currently here, but to certainly extensive
conversations with Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions, Senator
Hutchison, and Senator Nelson, which goes to essentially where
we are in this year's appropriation.
I am going to ask you a question and if you feel
comfortable answering it, fine. If not, I understand. But my
question is, when we look at 2008 what did you ask for from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and therefore what did
you get that we would also have to take into consideration, not
only in terms of the increase that was in the President's
budget? Because the 3 percent just kind of keeps us almost at
inflation.
Dr. Griffin. That is correct, ma'am. I am not able to delve
into discussions that go on within the Executive Office of the
President. I will say that everyone gets a full opportunity to
air their views. I've got mine. Ultimately decisions are made
and when the President signs his name to that budget it becomes
his submission, and I work for him and must support that.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Griffin, I respect that and I respect
that confidentiality. But that is also--see, I think the
President has a vision of where he wanted to go and I think you
are in alignment with that vision. But I think that there is a
gap here with the OMB view of the vision, which is why I would
like us all to get in the room as kind of a space summit. And I
say that in the most friendly way. It worked so well with the
President's father and Vice President Quayle.
Let me move--so just know, I think we all know where we
want to go. It is how can we get there.
Dr. Griffin. I admire and am very grateful for the support
that you have given to the space program on a bipartisan basis,
regardless of who is in charge when, and I know that that will
continue.
Senator Mikulski. Sure.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you.
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
Senator Mikulski. Let us go to the Hubble telescope. What
is the current launch date for the Hubble servicing mission and
does your fiscal year 2008 budget fully fund the servicing
mission?
Dr. Griffin. Well, the current date is September 2008 for
the Hubble servicing mission. The fiscal year 2008 budget, of
course, does not support that because the fiscal year 2008
budget was prepared and submitted by me and determined by the
OMB before we had ascertained that we could do the Hubble
servicing mission. You were with me. We announced----
Senator Mikulski. I remember it.
Dr. Griffin [continuing]. That last October. We had been
hoping for a spring 2008 launch and what we have is a September
2008 launch, which is 4 months different, because of the
necessity to first of all be certain that we could get the
servicing mission hardware to the pad in time, and April or May
would have been very dicey. Then second of all, we wanted to
have a launch on need capability if there were a rescue
mission.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Griffin, I know we have talked about
this.
Dr. Griffin. Right, okay. Sorry.
Senator Mikulski. Safety of the astronauts. What I hear is
that you have the financial resources----
Dr. Griffin. So I need to find $40 million in the
astrophysics budget and I will do that.
Senator Mikulski. But it is a $40 million price tag which
is not now currently in the 2008 framework; am I correct in
that?
Dr. Griffin. That is correct, ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. So we will have to work together on that.
And again, we are just identifying kind of a must-do list that
we need to go down.
EARTH OBSERVING SENSORS
Now, I found interesting your commentary on the science
budget, now 32 percent, which carries us through, of course,
2012. But at the same time, what we are concerned about is
these years into the future, one of which is 40 percent--now
let us go to Earth observing. Forty percent of the Earth
observing sensors now in orbit are going to kind of end by the
end of the decade unless they are replaced.
As you look ahead, is there money now in this year's
appropriation to make a down payment on replacing these
sensors? Do you see replacing these sensors? Where do you see
going with that?
Dr. Griffin. You, of course, ask a very good question.
Senator Mikulski. That is our bread and butter, am I
correct, apart from new ideas and new National Academy of
Sciences recommendations?
Dr. Griffin. We certainly have to keep in place the Earth
sensing, climate resource programs and the data. The continuity
of the data is crucial and we have to keep that in place. Now,
I need to take you back for just a moment to decisions made
some years ago that all of this climate research capability
would be put on the national polar-orbiting operational
environment satellite system (NPOESS) program, which is a
Department of Defense (DOD), NOAA, and NASA program. So NASA
climate research dollars were diverted to NPOESS.
Now, NPOESS breached the Nunn-McCurdy and so the climate
research sensors will not be on that. So we have asked the
National Academy of Sciences for a study; and we are doing
ourselves a study to determine, for OSTP, how we are going to
recover from the loss of climate information that was to be
provided by NPOESS and how we are going to incorporate that
into the Earth science program.
We will have those studies by some time this spring. We
will be factoring that into our planning for the 2009 request
and beyond, because we have to adapt now to a changed set of
circumstances that we did not anticipate.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I know my time has expired, but
with the indulgence of my ranking member, because he and I
thought--we had NOAA in here last week, I think, and we were
pretty robust in our questioning around the need for
accountability on NPOESS. We are very disappointed at the
enormity of the overrun, the fact that we were glad that the
McCurdy stepped in, but now we asked Admiral Lautenbacher, what
are you going to do about this and how are you going to
implement the recommendations.
But as you know, it was a three-headed thing. It was NOAA,
NASA, and the Air Force. I do not think we would ever go for
that kind of thing again. But where do you see yourselves
coming in, not only with the loss of Earth science capability,
but then also for the fiscal stewardship necessary for both
your role that when NPOESS flies you are still going to be
involved, ``you'' meaning NASA, is still going to be involved
with NPOESS.
So where do you see your fiscal stewardship? And then when
this happens in May, we do want to talk to you about climate
change, the climate crisis, because I think we all agree this
is where the American people want us to be working as well.
Can you help us out here?
Dr. Griffin. Well, we absolutely intend to discuss with you
the recommendations that come out of these two studies in
connection with how we will continue our climate research.
Senator Mikulski. That is how we are going to continue the
research. But you know, it was not only NOAA that dropped the
ball on the NPOESS. The Air Force played a big role in this and
so did NASA.
Dr. Griffin. NASA does not have money in the NPOESS
program.
Senator Mikulski. But you were all part of developing the
NPOESS and they, as they look at some of the issues here, feel
that it was also NASA that played a role, as did the Air Force,
in part of these overruns. Are you with me?
Dr. Griffin. I hear what you say and I understand you, but
I do not think that NASA had any role in the NPOESS overruns
and shortfalls.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I do not want to use my time going
down this path, but when we talked with Admiral Lautenbacher
last week, and we talked with him both publicly and I had a
conversation with him about it, because this is really a big
ticket item, as you know, about what was our way forward. He
seemed to also feel that there was a NASA role. So we need to
be able to talk about this and talk about it, so it is not only
about the climate change.
But I am going to turn to Senator Shelby and Senator
Alexander. I will come back with some more of this.
MANNED FLIGHT OF ORION VEHICLE
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Griffin, you have indicated that unless there are
additional funds provided in the next few fiscal years to NASA
that the first manned flight of Orion will not be until 2015
perhaps, instead of 2014 as called for in the recent NASA
authorization bill. The additional funds beyond those already
in the budget that would be required to have an operable
replacement for the Shuttle I understand would be $350 million
in 2009 and an additional $400 million in 2010.
In response to the funding levels provided by NASA for
2007, does NASA anticipate making any supplemental requests or
sending a budget amendment to the subcommittee in the months
ahead to try to make up this shortfall?
Dr. Griffin. We are discussing within the administration
what the way forward is, but I cannot say at this time. I
simply do not know whether we would be making an amended
request or change plans going forward.
PRECURSOR PROGRAM FOR LUNAR EXPLORATION
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski and a number of us that
support NASA believe you need more money for what you are
called upon to do. Lunar precursor missions. In 2005 the NASA
authorization act directed NASA to institute a robust precursor
program for lunar exploration. In December 2005, NASA awarded a
follow-on mission, the RLEP as it was called then, to a team
from the Marshall and Goddard Space Flight Centers, with
Marshall as the lead.
Last year before the subcommittee you stated that this
mission would be done in a timely way as a precursor mission,
but would not start until 2007. In your hearing with the House
Appropriations Committee early this week, it was my
understanding that you mentioned that all the information NASA
will need for a return to the Moon can be obtained from orbit.
This seems to indicate that the precursor mission will never
happen. If I am wrong, can you correct me on that?
Can you explain if the requirements have changed between
2005 and today and align that position with the direction of
NASA's authorization language for having a robust precursor
program? In other words, what is the current status of this?
Dr. Griffin. The information that we feel that we need--and
this conclusion has been reached in discussion with our NASA
advisory councils, science groups, as well as internally--the
conclusions we have reached are that the information we need
before putting people back on the Moon can be obtained with
lunar reconnaissance orbiter. The surface science and
technology that we would like to do is something we would like
to do, but it is not essential.
Because funding is very tight, we have a choice between
doing lunar surface science and technology with robotic
precursors early on. If we do that, we will delay the
development of the Ares launch vehicle and the Orion crew
vehicle by another 6 months. So if I undertake that work, I
will delay Orion and Ares even further. That is work not yet
started, and so when budgets are tight my normal first choice
is to delay work not yet started rather than to cancel work,
and my normal choice is to delay work which is nice to have but
not essential, and that is what we will be doing here.
PROPULSION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Senator Shelby. In the area of propulsion, we talked about
this before. The Vision for Space Exploration will require many
new technologies and systems to be developed in order to
maximize our investment on returning to the Moon. One of these
areas will require ongoing research and development in this
area of propulsion. Marshall Space Flight Center has expertise
in this area and has continued working on propulsion systems
from the time of the last missions to the Moon to the present.
As the work continues on the research and development on
Vision-related vehicles and systems, what do you anticipate
will be the need for propulsion research and development this
year and in the future?
Dr. Griffin. I do not need propulsion research to get back
to the Moon. I need propulsion systems development, if you
will, and that is going on at the Marshall Space Flight Center
and through its contractors, and they are doing, frankly, a
very good job. I am quite pleased with them. They will be busy
with the redevelopment of the Nation's space propulsion
capabilities for an upper stage and rocket capabilities for the
foreseeable future.
So Marshall is fully occupied helping us first replace the
Shuttle and then after that return to the Moon. I would like to
say, believe me, I would very much like to be doing advanced
research in propulsion. But as with other things in the budget,
there is a difference between must have and nice to have, and
right now what I must have is working propulsion systems, and
what would be nice to have is advanced propulsion research.
AGING NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, a lot of the NASA facilities
have aged and deteriorated, as you well know. A lot of us
believe there is significant need for infrastructure. Do you
have any plan for that? What can we do to help you? I know we
are the money Committee to appropriate money. We have those
challenges at Marshall. You have them at Goddard, you have them
at Kennedy Center, you have them in Florida.
Dr. Griffin. Sure. Sir, most of the NASA infrastructure, as
you know, is 40 some years old and more. Even at that, it is
not as old as many other Government facilities, but that is as
it is. We are working on an agency-wide facilities plan right
now. It will be done shortly. We are working with the Office of
Management and Budget to finalize that, and it will cover the
detailed data for the fiscal year 2008 construction of
facilities, including repair, rehabilitation, renovation,
replacement on existing systems, as well as any new things that
we need.
It will describe about a little more than a $6 million
strategic initiative to address our facilities repairs and
upgrades that are needed. Now, with regard to returning to the
Moon, we are going to make every effort to use existing
facilities. We would only propose building a new facility if
something that the U.S. Government already owns just does not
make the grade. But we will discuss that, the strategic plan,
with you just as soon as we have it.
Senator Shelby. Thank you very much.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Alexander.
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Griffin, I want to ask you about a $153 million item in
the budget that is labeled ``Education.'' I see that NASA's
education themes are: one, to contribute to the development of
science, technology, engineering, and math workforce in
disciplines needed to achieve NASA's strategic goals; and two,
to attract students and retain them in those disciplines. So it
is teachers, workers, students--and students, I guess is what
we are talking about.
Two years ago a group of us, including the chairman of this
subcommittee, asked the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering, of which you are a member----
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. To tell us what are the top
things we need to do in priority order to keep our brainpower
advantage in this country. They assembled a distinguished group
and gave us 20 specific items in priority order. And items A-1
and A-2 were the same things as your themes. In other words,
one, is annually recruit 10,000 science and math teachers by
awarding scholarships, et cetera; and two, is strengthening the
skills of 250,000 existing teachers through training and
education programs. So what I want to ask you is, in order to
keep our jobs in this country, keep growing them, if we wanted
quickly to recruit more math teachers and strengthen the skills
of existing math teachers and inspire students in math and
science, your $150 million is already at work toward that
objective. How effective are you at that? And specifically, how
many teachers, how many students, do you touch each year? And
do you have any measures of how much they learn or what
progress, how effective the programs are toward these goals?
And have you invited your Academy of Engineering or scientists
or other outside groups to look at this $150 million and say,
in light of these goals, which are now being incorporated into
legislation that has been introduced and is likely to pass here
by big bipartisan numbers, are we getting the biggest bang for
our buck on this $150 million in terms of new math and science
teachers and outstanding teachers, especially with summer
institutes and academies, which were highly recommended here as
some of the most effective programs for training math and
science teachers and aspiring students?
Dr. Griffin. I do not know that we are. I have a new
Assistant Administrator for Education. She has taken on the
task of trying to link our spending to measurable goals and
outcomes. When I rejoined NASA as Administrator, I too was
unhappy with the indefinite nature of our education program. We
are spending, as you see there, in round numbers around $150
million or so every year on direct education, and we are
spending another very substantial sum, in the low hundreds of
millions, on education and public outreach as a part of our
normal missions. So from all sources, NASA is spending
literally hundreds of millions on education, and it would be
nice to have it strategically oriented. I do not know that it
is right now, but we are working on it and I would be more than
pleased to provide an answer to you for the record on exactly
what we are doing or a briefing to you or your staff.
[The information follows:]
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
NASA is continually looking for ways to support science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education to compete
effectively for the imaginations and career ambitions of America's
young people. NASA also provides teachers with supplemental curricular
materials for the learning environment in communities.
NASA has developed a number of innovative programs that use NASA's
unique content, people and facilities to support educators in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and to inspire the
next generation of explorers and innovators through the Vision for
Space Exploration. Specific examples include:
Attracting students to the teaching profession
The NASA Educator Astronaut project uses the visibility and
educational opportunities created by the activities of the Educator
Astronauts to inspire greater K-12 STEM achievement, promote STEM
careers, and elevate public esteem for the teaching profession. In
selecting our Educator Astronauts, we identified hundreds of our
country's top educators. We have captured their energy through the
Network of Educator Astronaut Teachers (NEAT). Approximately 180 NEAT
members are now in communities all across America conducting workshops
(three annually) reaching about 90 educators per session. These efforts
result in strengthening STEM skills of approximately 10,000 teachers
annually. Additionally, professional development training engaging
educators, their schools and communities in NASA education activities
and informing them of NASA resources has taken place in 280 NASA
Explorer Schools (NES) 17 Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Aerospace
Academies (SEMAA), and 31 Aerospace Education Laboratories (AEL).
Providing pre- and in-service teacher training
NES provide intensive teacher training, the Aerospace Education
Support Project (AESP) provides on site professional development to
teachers in classrooms across the country. NES assist middle schools
with improving teaching and learning in STEM education through
significant structural (professional development, stipends, grants) and
curricular support based on NASA resources. In 2006, 5,339 teachers
received intensive training as part of the NES project. Additionally
the AESP conducted sessions across the Nation, reaching 13,938
educators.
--Research Academy provides leading-edge research opportunities for
faculty and students from Minority Institutions (MI) that
compliment NASA's research programs and make original
contributions to NASA in astrobiology, biotechnology,
information technology, and nanotechnology. Faculty and
students from MI collaborate with the scientists at NASA's Ames
Research Center, industry, academia and nonprofit organizations
on research that helps prepare the next generation of explorers
for NASA missions.
--In addition to in-service workshops based on our missions, NASA is
committed to the pre-service training of our future educators.
Through the National Pre-Service Teacher Conference, Pre-
Service Teacher Institutes and Online Professional Development,
NASA recruits STEM teachers to develop the confidence and
skills to effectively teach mathematics and science using
cutting-edge technology and educational materials. Such efforts
have led to 200 STEM-enhanced teachers instructing an average
of 25 students per classroom times 3 years, impacting a
projected total of 15,000 students.
--NASA's Digital Learning Network (DLN) fosters the effective use of
interactive instructional technologies through the delivery of
NASA educational content for the benefit of its students and
educators. It also contributes to the professional development
of internal and external educators through the delivery of
face-to-face and distance learning-based events. Over 74,000
students, teachers and other participants were engaged in a DLN
event last year.
Developing and distributing curricular support materials
Curriculum Improvement Partnership Award, a three-year
undergraduate curriculum improvement program for minority institutions
(MI), including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic
Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other MI,
emphasizes improvements that are directly related to the NASA mission
by infusing innovative learning experiences in STEM into the
curriculum. NASA's Educator Resource Centers (ERC) conducted educator
Resource Center Network 362 workshops in fiscal year 2006, helping
23,819 teachers learn about and use NASA's educational resources.
Personnel at ERCs located throughout the United States work with
teachers to find out what they need and to share NASA's expertise. The
ERCs provide educators with demonstrations of educational technologies
such as NASA educational Web sites and NASA Television. ERCs provide
in-service and pre-service training utilizing NASA instructional
products. Educators also have the opportunity to preview, copy and
receive NASA instructional products.
Through an innovative partnership, NASA is collaborating with
OfficeMax to provide educators with a convenient way to access NASA
materials in the most economical, productive and efficient way. If
educators require a document or material that is large quantity (number
of pages), and doesn't have the resources to print them, OfficeMax will
print materials and make them available at any of their nearly 1,000
stores across the country, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.
Supporting informal learning
The Museum Alliance provides near real-time access to NASA
information from missions such as Cassini, Hubble and Mars, as well as
Earth science resources, for use in museums and science centers across
the country.
In collaboration with the American Museum of Natural History,
dozens of activities and curricular support materials and lessons were
adapted for use by the after school community.
Other examples of the unique innovative projects that NASA makes
available to support students across our Nation and to inspire more
students to pursue higher levels of study in STEM courses include:
--The Science Engineering Mathematics and Aerospace Academy Program
(SEMAA) reaches K-12 minority students that are traditionally
underrepresented in careers involving STEM. Students meet
during school, after school or on Saturday mornings and during
the summer to engage in hands-on, interactive learning sessions
that are specifically designed for each grade level.
Between the International Space Station, the space shuttle,
sounding rockets and high altitude balloons, NASA's Education
Flight Projects provide hands-on experiences to inspire and
motivate students to pursue studies and careers in STEM through
participation in NASA research applications. NASA is using its
unique assets like the C-9 to allow students to study
microgravity; we are launching student experiments more than 25
miles above the Earth on sounding rockets; and our astronauts
make phone calls from 240 miles above Earth's atmosphere to
students to involve them in current research aboard the
International Space Station. All these opportunities take
advantage of our flight hardware projects provide real, hands-
on experiences to inspire the minds, imaginations, and career
ambitions of America's young people.
--Teacher training for Worlds Beyond Our Own captures the excitement
and discovery surrounding planetary exploration. NASA and the
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory developed workshops
and materials to assist educators in capturing the excitement
surrounding NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto that launched
in January 2006. New Horizons is the fastest spacecraft ever
launched from Earth, on board one of America's most powerful
rockets, and will be traveling the farthest distance of any
NASA spacecraft to begin its primary mission. Students will
grow up with this project. Today's elementary school students
will be in college when this spacecraft encounters Pluto.
--Museums and Science Centers are developing activities and materials
to inspire, educate, and engage students, educators and the
general public. They are also hosting professional development
opportunities for formal and informal education professionals
across the Nation. For example, in 2005 NASA and the Children's
Museum of History, Natural History, Science and Technology in
Utica, NY unveiled two new exhibits at the museum. The exhibits
``Why We Explore'' and ``Space Station Imagination'' provided
an overview of the history and future of space exploration.
Astronaut Ed Lu, a veteran Space Station astronaut, who spent
six months aboard the International Space Station, hosted the
unveiling.
--NASA's Great Moonbuggy Competition allows high school and college
students' to race into the future and cross the surface of the
moon without leaving the Earth. Teams from the United States
and Puerto Rico design human-powered vehicles to compete in
NASA's annual Great Moonbuggy Race. The race was inspired by
the lunar rover vehicles astronauts drove on the moon during
three Apollo missions. This year's event, opened to the media
and public, was held April 13-14 at the U.S. Space & Rocket
Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
In fiscal year 2005, through a variety of venues (distance
learning, videoconferencing, events, competitions, face-to-face, Space
Shuttle and ISS downlinks, workshops, and other activities NASA has
reached more than 2.9 million students, (776,000 K-12; 50,000 higher
education; 2,151,380 distance learning students) and 855,000 teachers.
(Please note: the number of teachers represents not a number of the
individuals that participated but a number of participation
opportunities that were taken, many of which were taken multiple times
by the same individuals.)
Educators who participated in NASA workshops and events provided
feedback via the NASA Education Evaluation Information System (NEEIS)
regarding the effectiveness and relevance of our efforts. With a 5.0
Liken scale in which ``5'' is the highest value, the average of the
teacher participant ratings of NASA's workshops and resources was 4.67.
NASA's resources (teacher training programs, supplemental
curricular materials, etc.) are aligned to national standards and
complement other agencies efforts. Interagency forums, e.g. the
National Science and Technology Council enable all STEM education
focused agencies and departments to share information and best
practices to promote complementary activities.
Additionally, NASA uses objective and verifiable performance
metrics, regular management insight and review processes, and defined
tools to assess its performance at all levels--portfolio, outcome, and
the individual program/project/product/activity.
The Agency is working with other agencies, e.g., National Science
Foundation to examine their evaluation techniques to determine
applicability and best practices for assessing NASA's education
portfolio, strategic outcomes, and projects.
In fiscal year 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) Board on
Science Education began work under a contract with NASA to conduct an
evaluation of NASA's precollege education program. An expert panel was
convened and the first committee meeting was held Nov. 15-17, 2006. A
second meeting held on January 18-19, 2007. Three additional committee
meetings will be held prior to the submission of the NRC's report,
scheduled for November 2007. The NRC does not release preliminary
results prior to submission of their report.
In addition to the NRC evaluation, other independent assessments,
evaluations and program reviews of projects such as NES, AESP,
EarthKam, and SEMAA are conducted annually by Paragon Tec Inc. (NES),
Western Michigan University (AESP), Education Development Center for
Child and Technology (EarthKam), and Benson Penick and Associates
(SEMAA).
Senator Alexander. Well, no, I would be--you can provide it
to me, because I am very interested in it and would like to
work with you. My son went to the space camp in Huntsville and
that's an attractive way to inspire students. But if I may
suggest, one outside group that may be useful to your assistant
and to you as you measure the $150 million might be the
Augustine Group in the National Academies, because they spent a
summer looking over a great many programs, looking at their
effectiveness. That would be one source of input.
For example, the legislation that we have would increase
the number of summer institutes at national labs. Well, I can
think of no more inspiring place for math and science teachers
in Tennessee to go for a 2-week session than an academy in
Huntsville, to learn new techniques for teaching math and
science and to inspire them to do a better job.
You have so many degrees that you have enough degrees for
the whole room here, so I know I am preaching to the choir. But
just as an example, we are talking about very measurable
numbers here. Governor Hunt of North Carolina, former Governor,
told us that the University of North Carolina College of
Education graduated three physics teachers last year for the
entire State of North Carolina. I am sure the number in
Tennessee is not much more. But just in our own region with
that one activity in Huntsville, we could probably quadruple or
double or even by a factor of more the number of teachers
through summer institutes, academies, a variety of ways.
So I would look forward to working with you on that and
following it over time, and I am delighted that you are there
and that it is a priority of yours.
Dr. Griffin. I would be interested in working with you on
it and I am certain that if legislation is passed increasing
the number of summer academies and institutes that we would be
happy to be part of that. We would be thrilled.
MATH AND SCIENCE INSTITUTIONS
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, and I am also suggesting
that since they have recommended this as the single most
important thing we could do to keep our competitive edge, ahead
of research, ahead of the R&D tax credit, ahead of everything
else, we might take some of that $150 million you have now got
and have some summer institutes for math and science teachers
and students.
Dr. Griffin. Well, much of the money that we are spending
today is set aside for member preferences on how the education
dollars are to be spent, and if it could be spent more
strategically I would be, for one, I would be much in support
of that.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Griffin, now you know why Senator
Shelby and I were so excited that Senator Alexander joined the
subcommittee. We worked with he and Senator Domenici and
Senator Bingaman last year to literally put into a legislative
framework the rising above the gathering storm, and he came on
this particular subcommittee because of his passion really to
implement the triad of increased research, increased
opportunities in education to get people excited about science,
and number three, a more innovation-friendly government.
Who is your new assistant for education?
Dr. Griffin. Her name escapes me right now.
Senator Mikulski. Mary, do you want to?
Dr. Griffin. Oh, thanks. Dr. Joyce Winterton. I am sorry.
She just recently came on board and I met her only once.
Senator Mikulski. No, I know you've got a lot on your mind.
This is like sitting for your oral exams for your doctorate. We
go from one topic--no, we understand.
Dr. Griffin. No, that was easy. This is much tougher.
Senator Mikulski. What we would like to suggest is that the
new Administrator meet with Senator Alexander, because you are
right, in previous years education has been gushy and where
there is a vacuum members step in. So now I think we would like
to make wise and prudent use of that $150 million and we can
see the benefits. Certainly the NASA relationship with the
Maryland Science Center has been a cornucopia of running
opportunities both for teachers and for students.
But we would like to really make good use of this because,
again, NASA is where it is at. It is--what I said to the
President about being in the innovation-competition agenda,
competitiveness agenda. It is NASA through its technology,
through Hubble, to its space exploration program, that really
excites people about science. And we have got all these young
little geniuses out there who want to participate in October
Sky, while we, of course, do our appropriations.
SPACE SHUTTLE RETIREMENT
So moving on, though, to like some nuts and bolts again,
Shuttle retirement. What I am concerned about is what happens
if the Space Station is not finished by 2010 and you are ready
to retire the Shuttle? Do we anticipate that the Shuttle really
will be done by--excuse me, the Space Station, that the Space
Station will be done by 2010? And do you really believe that it
will, but do you have a contingency plan? What is the
consequences of the contingency plan?
Dr. Griffin. We have dealt with that in a couple of ways.
First of all, I do believe that the assembly schedule
accommodates ample margin to finish the assembly of the Space
Station with the Space Shuttle by 2010. It was planned that
way. When I came back to NASA, we did not have a plan that
accommodated a reasonable schedule reserve to finish the Space
Station by 2010, nor did we have the budget for it. So we
tightened our belt on the human space flight side of the house
and we deferred, as many have regretted and as I regret, we
deferred some of the utilization of the Space Station in the
next few years in order to focus on assembling it.
So our average flight rate over the years, including time
out for two losses due to accidents, has been 4\1/2\ flights
per year. We are on that pace now again. We are doing well, and
if we continue that pace we will finish with ample margin. So I
do believe we can do that.
Now, the consequences----
Senator Mikulski. Do you envision any scenario that would
keep the Shuttle going after 2010?
Dr. Griffin. I do not. In fact, at some point years ahead
of your last flight you have to buy your last tank, your last
solid rocket boosters. We've done that. So we do not envision a
scenario in which we would continue to fly past 2010. Now, the
last couple of flights have been arranged so that they are the
least crucial flights, and so if it were necessary to drop a
flight or two we would still have the assembly complete. Some
of our logistics would not be delivered and we would have to
find some other means of commercial transport to put those up.
In fact, that is what we plan to rely on between 2010 and when
the crew exploration vehicle (CEV) comes along, is commercial
transportation to the Space Station to deliver our supplies and
other cargo.
ORION CREW RETURN VEHICLE/ARES LAUNCH VEHICLE
Senator Mikulski. We could have a robust conversation just
on that. But I would like to give you the opportunity, because
I know Senator Shelby as our other colleagues are very keenly
interested in, of course, the Orion crew return vehicle and the
Ares launch vehicle. That is the bread and butter. I mean, that
is the--without that, space exploration will really just
sputter.
The Orion of course, the safety of our astronauts, the crew
return vehicle, and of course the launch vehicle. In your fall
testimony, which was the part that I was reading, you talk
about how, based on everything I know, due to the cumulative
effect of reductions in the exploration system to pay for the
Space Shuttle return, previously underestimated costs to fly
the Shuttle until 2010, and the reduction in fiscal year 2007,
you were concerned about, number one, the schedule that you now
had, and number two, you also comment that you are not sure
about what will be the workforce implications of all of this.
What I would like to do today with Senator Shelby and I
here, do you want to elaborate on that, so we just kind of get
it all out into the air? Right now we have just identified
Hubble costs $40 million. That is a chunk of money. Let us
really talk about what it is going to take and what you would
like to see in order that we meet--we understand, we do want
Orion. We do want Ares, and we want it in as well-paced a way
as you would, and I think the mission calls for.
So do you want to elaborate on your testimony, because I
think this is the nuts and bolts of what colleagues are asking
and what we are asking. So tell us how you see this and for you
to elaborate on your testimony, and particularly also the work
force implications, because some of our colleagues are
apprehensive.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chairman. Would you like me to sort
of walk you through how we got where we got?
Senator Mikulski. No, we know how we got where we are.
Dr. Griffin. You know how we got there, okay. So you want
to know what we need to go forward.
Senator Mikulski. Yes. We know how--it is kind of that
same, we are where we are. So we know where we got, but we have
got to get going. So let us talk about the got to get going.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to make
sure I understood what you wanted me to talk about. Accepting
the intent of the Congress on the fiscal year 2007 continuing
resolution, Senator Nelson and Senator Hutchison asked me what
it would take to get back into 2014 with the CEV and the Ares
and Orion. I said, after we studied it carefully, to replace
the money that was not appropriated in 2007 would require $350
million in fiscal year 2009 and $400 million in fiscal year
2010, as close as we can estimate it. That would get us back to
September 2014. I was also asked what it would take to get back
into 2013 and, considering that again as carefully as we can,
we believe that it is about $100 million a month. So that
should just be the way that you should think about it. Every
month that you want to pull the schedule in is $100 million.
The best we could do at this point would be to bring it
back to June 2013. So June 2013 is where we are on a technical
schedule.
Senator Mikulski. Technical. But as it stands now, based on
the 2014, knowing earlier is always nice to hear, but we would
be concerned about two things. Number one, what now as we look
at 2008 in order to meet responsibilities, meet our
responsibilities in 2008, and also what you need to do in terms
of the fiscal mechanisms, not to be sure that we do not get
into the overrun problem.
Dr. Griffin. Of course, now----
Senator Mikulski. What do you need in 2008 to, say, meet a
2014?
Dr. Griffin. I do not need anything additional in 2008.
Senator Mikulski. But for us to stay the course?
Dr. Griffin. For us to stay the course. If you wished to
pull the schedule in and stay the course and be in 2014, we
would need money in 2009 and 2010. Of course, you know better
than anyone that fiscal year 2009 preparation starts next
month. So fiscal year 2009 is already upon us. But I do not
need additional funds in fiscal year 2008. But I would need to
know that funding would be coming along in fiscal years 2009
and 2010.
Senator Mikulski. But your point, though, is that in 2008,
that if there is any shrinkage in 2008--and, of course, we are
looking forward to what our allocation is going to be. This is
why we are looking--you know, we are so glad the budget is
going to be on the floor, that we know what our allocation is,
because we presume that some time in May we will need
additional conversations. We will know what our allocation is,
we will know the direction.
But to be clear, if we stay the course in 2008 as
recommended here, you will be moving while you are looking at
2009. And that is also if something unforeseen does not happen.
Dr. Griffin. That is exactly correct, Senator. If I get the
President's budget in 2008 and if the funding I mentioned in
2009 and 2010 were to be supplied, if you chose to do that,
then we would be back on track. I will say for the record, our
technical planning on these systems is very conservative. We
are budgeting with new levels of conservatism. I have spoken of
65 percent confidence level budgeting. Paul has heard me and
Art has heard me on this. So I strongly believe, that we can
avoid future technical surprises in this. We are not developing
new technology here. We are striving to restore lost
capability. So this is not the time to develop new technology.
INDEPENDENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS ORGANIZATION
Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, I know that many are
talking about even if we could accelerate it another year. I
want to be sure that there are mechanisms in place to make sure
that Orion and Ares are properly managed. And I know you share
that.
Do you have an independent oversight mechanism to verify
cost, design, and technical feasibility?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, we do. We have an entire independent
program analysis organization that, in fact, does just such
cost analyses, that is independent of the programs.
Senator Mikulski. I am sorry; who does that?
Dr. Griffin. Again, it is our independent program analysis
organization.
Senator Mikulski. So you have an internal red team?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chair.
Senator Mikulski. Is that kind of that in a nutshell?
Dr. Griffin. We do. They are located at Langley or they are
headquartered at Langley. They are independent of the programs
and their estimates in fact have been quite reliable. It was
they who brought to me the correct information regarding the
underfunding of the James Webb Space Telescope a couple of
years ago. So I have found them to be very good.
Senator Mikulski. We just needed to know what it was.
I just--I do not know if Senator Shelby has more questions,
but when Shelby--when Senator Shelby moved the bill last year,
I think, Senator, you had $3.7 billion in there for this, which
of course is very close to the President's budget. Had we been
able to move our bill, I think we would be in good shape.
I know with the continuing resolution--and it has given
heartburn to many of us, even the idea that we had to do one--
there was $400 million, so it was not a total loss. But it was
enough of a loss for you to lose time, but you do not want to
lose ground; is this right? And if we get back to where we are,
I think we will have a way forward.
Dr. Griffin. That is correct, Madam Chairman. I would again
emphasize we will soon be making decisions with our contractor
based on what money we can expect when. So if it is your
intention----
Senator Mikulski. You know, when you talk about 2009 and
2010, I do not dispute this. I am glad to hear. Also there is
the red teaming, which means--but we are not the only ones that
need to hear this. And I know you are starting next month. This
is why I would like for us to be in the room and say, we have
got to talk about a couple of years here, how we can retire the
Shuttle with honor and say goodbye, not be sitting on the
launch pad for a prolonged period of time, but do it in a well-
paced way, as well as to meet important scientific objectives
that have been identified by both your team and the national
academies.
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I think we do
need some type of summit with Dr. Griffin and others where we
can just talk about what we really need, where you really want
to go, and so forth, and see how we can help.
Dr. Griffin, ACI. I was surprised to see that NASA was not
included as part of the American competitiveness initiative,
ACI. The goals for the education component of NASA's budget are
to strengthen the Nation's future workforce, attract and retain
students in science and engineering, and to engage Americans in
NASA's mission. Coupled with the high public visibility and
recognition that you enjoy, it seems that NASA would be a
natural fit for such an initiative.
It is troubling why NASA was not included in this
initiative. It seems like it is a pretty good fit.
Dr. Griffin. Well, yes, sir. In fact, much of what we do
fits very naturally within the goals of the ACI. There may be
some semantics involved here, but I think in a way that is a
reason why NASA was not specifically included. We are already
doing many of those things.
The ACI was also intended to provide additional budget for
agencies which had not been receiving it, and from the
administration's point of view NASA is already above the
average level for domestic non-defense discretionary agencies.
Senator Shelby. You have got a lot of brainpower, I think,
that we could use.
Dr. Griffin. Well, I hope we do.
Senator Mikulski. I would agree.
Dr. Griffin. Well, we support your view that we at NASA do
many things that are closely related to the goals of the ACI
and we intend to keep doing those things.
CHINESE ASAT TEST
Senator Shelby. China. I know that last summer you were in
China to talk about their space program and so forth.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. As we are all aware, China recently
conducted a test that destroyed a weather satellite in an orbit
about 500 miles above the Earth. This test had to have created
some space debris that eventually will fall or could fall to
the Earth. But it would first have to pass through space
occupied by the International Space Station and other valuable
NASA assets. That is what I have been told.
I do not want you to touch on any classified information
here, but what risk to NASA's assets was created by this test
and could you relate that here, or would you rather defer that?
Dr. Griffin. No, I can discuss that here, Senator. For the
first few weeks after the Chinese ASAT test, the risk to the
Space Station approximately doubled. Now, I would state
correctly for the record that the average daily risk to the
Space Shuttle from orbital debris is about 1 in 100,000. So the
risk doubled from about 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 50,000.
After a few weeks, the debris had spread out and retreated
into what the analysts refer to as the background. So after a
few weeks that debris posed no measurable additional risk over
the existing background that was already there. Nonetheless, of
course, we deplore such tests because we now understand in a
way that we did not some decades ago how dangerous that debris
can be, and in fact China is part of international coordinating
bodies whose goal is to mitigate such debris. So we do regret
that test, but at this point it does not pose an additional
threat to any space assets that we have.
STATUS OF THE EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, for the record, could you give
us a status of the exploration activities such as the
Constellation program are progressing, would you specifically
focus on crew exploration vehicle, the crew launch vehicle, and
the launch operation aspects of the program? Could you do that?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. The crew exploration vehicle--
when I sat here with you a year ago we were in the middle of
source selection. We said that we would select a winning
contractor by Labor Day of that year, and we did. That winning
contractor is Lockheed. We have spent the last few months
working with them to scrub the design and definitize the
requirements. That has gone quite well. They are on track and
they are on target.
We with Senator Mikulski already discussed the impact of
various delays, including the need to find additional money for
the Space Shuttle last year and the continuing resolution this
year. The accumulated effect of delays is to put us into 2015,
which none of us want to be in, and both of you have expressed
your desire to help with that and I appreciate it.
But the technical work on the CEV is on target. The Ares
launch vehicle, which, as I think you know, is being developed
under the leadership of a team at the Marshall Space Flight
Center, is equally on target. They are doing just a great job.
They have released the RFP, the request for proposals. Industry
is now bidding on the upper stage development work for that
vehicle. The first stage uses an existing development, the
Shuttle solid rocket booster, which the project office for that
exists at Marshall Space Flight Center. So we will be combining
a second stage with an old first stage, and that will be the
new crew vehicle.
The instrument unit for that will be procured in an RFP
this October. So by the time the new fiscal year starts, we
will have all the elements of Shuttle replacement under
contract and in work. I am very pleased. We have teams at
Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center on that.
I am very pleased.
Launch pad work has already started on Complex 39B to
transition that from a Shuttle pad to a new Orion and Ares pad.
Now, Senator Mikulski, as you and I have discussed, we will
preserve the launch on need capability during the Hubble Space
Telescope servicing mission. So we will not make modifications
to Complex 39B which would interfere with the Shuttle launch,
but we have started those modifications in non-interfering
ways.
The team is excited. They are energized. This is affecting
our educational posture because I spent 13 years as an adjunct
professor. If I ever again have a life to call my own, I will
go back to doing it. But my academic friends are telling me
that their college students are excited and they are energized
because they see a space program being reborn out there that
they can join when they graduate from college, and they look
ahead and they say, well, when I am 45 we will be going to
Mars, and that is true. If we keep going with what we are
doing, that is true. So work is going very well.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, I do not believe you will be
an adjunct professor unless you want to by choice. You will be
a chaired professor somewhere.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON EARTH SCIENCE
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mister--thank you, Senator
Shelby.
I just have one last question before we go. I know there
are votes. I want those college kids when they are 45 knowing
that we are on Mars, but I do not want them sitting at a kayak
at Goddard because the bay has risen that far because of global
warming.
Which takes us to the National Academy of Sciences report
on Earth science. Dr. Griffin, as you know, they have
recommended a robust agenda of 17 different projects to study
climate and atmospheric and oceans issues along with NOAA, to
really also focus on those things that would have societal
benefit.
Do you want to tell us your reaction to this and how you
would see--I know it is not in 2008, but how you would see
incorporating this? And also, one of the things it calls for is
a memorandum of agreement with NOAA to really maximize and
leverage the respective work that both agencies are doing. Do
you want to comment on that?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chairman, I would like to. I think
the NASA-NOAA relationship is as good or better than it has
ever been. Admiral Lautenbacher and I and our staffs talk
frequently. We, as I said in an answer to one of your earlier
questions, we recognize the need to replan our Earth science
and observation and climatology work together, given the
restructuring of NPOESS, and we will be doing that over this
summer and we will be keeping you and your staffs informed as
to how that is going.
We have a National Research Council study which is due to
us to help with this issue, as well as a study that we are
preparing for OSTP. We will factor in the results of the new
decadal, which I would remind you, we asked for that decadal.
So we now have their priorities for the work which should be
done within Earth science, and in fact we used the midterm
report on that to increase money to the global precipitation
measurement mission, the GPM, which we will be doing in
conjunction with the Japanese. So we are paying attention.
Senator Mikulski. I want to be very clear that the
recommendations of the National Academy on Earth science for
the climate crisis does not mean in any way to imply that you,
meaning NASA and the Earth sciences have not already been
looking at it.
Dr. Griffin. Right.
Senator Mikulski. This is the look ahead. That is why they
call it the decadal. That is like we are in the decathlon.
Dr. Griffin. So we will be restructuring our Earth science
portfolio, or we will be making certain that our Earth sciences
portfolio over the budget planning horizon starting with the
fiscal year 2009 budget does reflect the input of the decadal,
and we will share that with you.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I am really excited to hear about
that and, as both Senator Shelby and I have said, we have got a
long road ahead. I think we are very clear that in 2008--
ordinarily phrases like ``stay the course'' do not usually mean
something, but we understand how--what we need to be doing in
2008. But we also want to look ahead to the longer issue, the
NASA trend lines, as well as ensuring that we do have a
reliable space transportation system as promptly as the Nation
can afford to do it, as well as keeping other important
projects.
I think we have really gone through quite a bit of our
questions. Senator Shelby, do you have a last one?
RANKING MEMBER SHELBY CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Shelby. I just have one brief comment since we have
Dr. Griffin here again.
Dr. Griffin, we want to work with you, both of us. I work
now as the ranking Republican, former chairman. Senator
Mikulski was the former ranking Democrat, now chairman. But I
do not believe that NASA has two bigger supporters than the two
of us here on this subcommittee. We are going to continue to
work with you to make NASA what it wants to be.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator. I know that you have been
my biggest supporters and I very much appreciate it.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee is recessed. We will
return on April 12, when we will take testimony from the
Attorney General.
[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., Thursday, March 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Lautenberg, Shelby, Stevens,
and Domenici.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, ACTING DIRECTOR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies will come to
order. Today we will be taking the testimony of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the United States Marshals
Service.
We want to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses today and
let our witnesses know how important we think their job and
their mission is to this country.
When we planned this hearing a few months ago, it was to
examine the budget of these very dedicated law enforcement
agencies and to discuss how the Commerce, Justice, Science
Subcommittee could work with them to make sure they had the
tools they needed to protect our national security and keep our
communities safe.
Yet, this week, a very grim and very melancholy event
occurred on the campus of one of our universities. On Monday we
watched in shock and horror as Virginia Tech came under fire
with over 32 dead and many more injured. The terrible tragedy
highlights how important it is for our Federal law enforcement
agencies to be able to work together with our local law
enforcement at a time of great tragedy.
What we know is that ATF was immediately on the scene
sending 12 ATF experts to Virginia to secure the crime scene,
and make sure that the integrity of the evidence at the crime
scene was not compromised. In fact, Maryland is home to a very
unique ATF forensic lab. I know the subcommittee will be
interested to hear about this facility because it is where ATF
identified the ballistics evidence to determine if there was a
single killer or multiple killers. But at the same time we know
that DEA and the Marshals Service also answered the call.
In the briefing that you've provided me before this hearing
it was clear there was an outstanding effort by Federal
agencies in supporting and augmenting the local community so
they knew they were not alone. While they were making the best
of a terrible situation, you were doing your best, which was
making sure needs were met. We will be asking you today
questions along these lines.
We also want to then focus on each of your very unique
missions. We know that the DEA is an integral part of fighting
the global war against terrorism. Terrorism, whether it's been
growing poppies in Afghanistan to fund the Taliban or to what
is happening in our own community with the cyber distribution
of highly addictive substances or to working with State and
local law enforcement to shut down and clean up toxic meth
labs. We want to know more about what you're doing and what we
can do to help you do it.
Also for our Marshals Service, the Marshals Service plays a
unique role. Right this minute on the Senate floor we're
debating court security. We ask the Marshals Service to provide
court protection to both witnesses and to our judges. We also
ask them to guard fugitives. We also ask them to provide unique
and special protection in high profile trials where there is a
drug kingpin or a terrorist. At the same time we want them to
enforce the Adam Walsh Act and make sure they apprehend the
sexual predators who refuse to register while making sure you
catch them before they commit another repugnant act.
So we want to listen to all of you today. Our ATF, whose
unique job is to enforce laws related to alcohol, tobacco, and
firearms. This is not the old days of breaking up stills. There
is nothing still about ATF in terms of its modern mission.
They're on the scene investigating arsons, illegal trafficking
of guns both internationally and nationally while providing
unique forensic capability that often local communities cannot
afford particularly those in rural America.
Threats have changed since your agencies were created.
Technology is in demand and at the same time the very people
that work in these agencies need to have even better and unique
training. So the job today is to listen to what you are doing
and to tell us what resources you need to be able to do it
better, to make sure that we're protecting our national
security and our community security.
With that I would like to then yield to my ranking member,
Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Chairman Mikulski. I want to
thank all of the participants for joining us to discuss the
2008 budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and U.S.
Marshals Service.
The total Department of Justice request for 2008 is a
little over $20 billion. This is a $771 million decrease below
the 2007 joint resolution funding level. The Department faces a
$500 million shortfall in the 2008 budget. Just as I said last
year, the budget constraints placed upon us by the war on
terror and the recent hurricane seasons will once again force
us to make tough decisions.
I would be remiss though if I didn't, as Senator Mikulski
has already done, mention the tragedy that took place on the
Virginia Tech campus Monday morning. My heartfelt thoughts go
out to everyone that was affected by this horrible event.
The ATF has been one of the lead investigative agencies in
this horrible disaster and it has done an outstanding job. ATF
agents quickly identified ballistic evidence linking a weapon
used in the first shooting to the second shooting. Acting
Director Sullivan, I commend your personnel in the labs and on
the ground for their quick and professional response. This
somber day will be one mourned and remembered by all of us for
years and years to come.
I also once again want to commend the ATF for its
contributions to the quick capture and conviction of the
Alabama church fire arsonist that was sentenced to prison last
week, remember that horrible situation there, where they were
burning churches.
The ATF's 2008 request is a little over $1 billion. The
request is $29.8 million over the 2007 joint resolution total
and you'll need it. The ATF as we all know is the premier
agency for gun crimes, gang activity, arson, and explosive
related crimes. I'm committed, as the chairman is, to ensure
that you have the tools and training facilities to fulfill your
explosives mission.
The National Center for Explosives Research will be a
world-class addition to the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville,
Alabama, which is already home of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) hazardous devices school.
I'm working collaboratively here to expand the Federal
Government's explosive infrastructure and expertise there. This
will assist in our number one priority of terrorism prevention
and ensuring a safe homeland.
Redstone Arsenal should and will be the law enforcement
capital of explosives research and training. We have the
personnel. You have them there.
Director Sullivan, I would like to offer you
congratulations again on your nomination to be the permanent
Director of ATF. We believe you will sail through. We all want
to help you. You bring a lot of experience as a former U.S.
attorney in Massachusetts and I believe that you will serve the
ATF and the Nation well in this regard.
Administrator Tandy, thank you for coming today. The Drug
Enforcement Administration's budget request for 2008 is $1.8
billion, a little over a $57 million increase over the 2007
joint resolution total.
The role of the DEA has shifted from being solely focused
on narcotics to include an intelligence mission and a position
on the front line on the war on terror. As former chairman on
the Select Committee on Intelligence, I know all too well the
link between global drug trafficking and terrorism.
I understand the detrimental impact that a hiring freeze
has on your ability to carry out your mission. Senator Mikulski
and I will be working with you on the 2008 process to see that
you, the DEA, have the manpower that you need to carry out your
mission. I think it's critical.
By the same token, while we're addressing the budget
shortfalls and hiring freeze, I received this disturbing letter
from the Department of Justice on March 6, stating that the
cost of the clandestine laboratory training facility has
doubled from $8 million to $16 million.
This letter combined with the disastrous cost escalations,
poor estimations, and project management of the DEA's
information technology center that jumped from $7.1 million to
$38 million show a disturbing and, I think, unacceptable trend
that we'll have to put our hands on in this subcommittee.
I will reserve any further judgment because we don't know
all the facts until we hear from the recommendations of the
inspector general and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO).
Meth, as the chairman has mentioned, use continues to
poison our Nation, knowing no boundaries of age, gender, class
or race. The majority of this drug is shipped into our country
from Mexico and I want to commend the DEA and the Department of
Justice in their recent success of Operation Imperial Emperor,
where more than 400 individuals were arrested and $45 million
in U.S. currency and 18 tons of illegal drugs were seized from
a Mexican drug cartel. That's progress.
Violent Mexican drug cartels have turned our Southwest
border into a battle zone where our DEA agents put their lives
on the line everyday. These cartels have their own advanced
telecommunications towers and encrypted radios making their
communications system virtually impenetrable with our current
surveillance quota.
I hope, Senator Mikulski, that we will be able to help fund
with the modern technology that the DEA needs here to have the
right technology in the hands of our agents so that they can
fight this battle.
Director Clark, the U.S. Marshals Service budget request is
$899.8 million. This is an $80 million increase over the 2007
joint resolution total. The core responsibilities of the
Marshals Service include providing judicial and courthouse
security, safeguarding witnesses, transporting prisoners for
court proceedings, seizing forfeited property and apprehending
fugitives. That's a lot.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
estimates that over 600,000 sex offenders in the United States,
more than 100,000 of them have failed to register. With the
enactment of the Adam Walsh Act, marshals are tasked with
removing those unregistered offenders from our streets which is
a daunting task.
Last year the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency
received funding to hire an additional 2,000 border patrol
agents. Marshals bare the primary burden of transporting
illegal alien prisoners taken into custody by these border
patrol agents meaning there will be fewer marshals removing
unregistered sexual offenders from our neighborhoods and
streets. This is a problem, I think, Madam Chairman, we've got
to address.
The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 authorized
the permanent creation of fugitive apprehension task forces
which are comprised of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement authorities in designated regions. Through this
act, the gulf coast regional fugitive task force, headquartered
in Birmingham, Alabama, was created last May.
At approximately 8 a.m., a young female lawyer was
kidnapped at gunpoint in the parking lot just a few blocks from
my office in downtown Birmingham. Some of you might remember
seeing video of this as it was captured on a security camera
and shown on network news channels all over the Nation.
Through the efforts of the gulf coast regional fugitive
task force, the kidnapper was captured and the woman returned
to her family without serious bodily harm. That is good, good
work. This is just one example of what you're doing and how
you're doing it.
Last, the reprehensible working conditions and inadequate
security resources that our marshals endure in the District of
Columbia Superior Court building have recently been brought to
my attention. Stale ventilation, flooding hallways, poor
plumbing, malfunctioning lights that are needed to illuminate
prisoner traffic areas monitored by security cameras and
archaic prisoner tracking system and antiquated prisoner
scanning devices are conditions that are not acceptable, that
you need better funds for better equipment.
Director Clark, I understand you visited this facility last
week and I look forward to hearing from your visit and what we
can do, this subcommittee, to resolve this very, very serious
matter and I want to thank you for the job you do and I want to
thank the men and women who work at the Department of Justice
for what they do everyday. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. The
way the subcommittee is going to proceed is we're now going to
turn to our witnesses and then for those who colleagues who
also had opening statements, you can incorporate that in your
question and we'll add some additional moment or two so there
would be no penalty.
Our colleague Senator Domenici, I know, has to go to
another hearing and we're going to work to accommodate him
after the testimony of our three people.
Does that meet your needs, Senator Domenici?
Senator Domenici. I have an entire delegation in my office
now in 5 minutes so I will hope that I'll be finished in time
to come back. I'll try my best.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Senator, we'll certainly reserve
the time for you and I can assure you along with Senator Shelby
if you have questions for the record or if your staff would
even want us to be sure we cover any ground this morning.
Senator Domenici. We have had a very important set of
activities regarding meth in New Mexico and I wanted to follow
up on them and I hope I get back in time to do that.
Senator Mikulski. And any way we can support you in doing
that, fine.
Why don't we then turn to, excuse me, turn to our panel to
present their testimony. What I'd like to suggest is Mr.
Sullivan, we start with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives then go to Ms. Tandy and our very able
Marshals Service will be the wrap up.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
Mr. Sullivan. Good morning Chairman Mikulski, Ranking
Member Shelby, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I
have submitted a detailed statement that I'm asking to be made
part of the record so I only have a few brief remarks.
This is my second time testifying before a congressional
Appropriations Committee and my first time before the Senate
and I'm very pleased to be here to speak on the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request for ATF.
I want to thank you Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member
Shelby for your recognition of ATF. It has been my personal and
professional honor to lead this agency for the past 7 months.
I'm also pleased to be sitting here with Administrator
Tandy and Director Clark, two individuals I have tremendous
respect for.
ATF has a long and successful history of working closely
with DEA and the U.S. Marshals Service as well as our other
Federal law enforcement partners including the FBI and the
Bureau of Prisons. Such partnerships are vital to accomplishing
our mission and serving the interests of our fellow citizens.
As the United States attorney in Massachusetts and a former
local prosecutor, I came through the door at ATF with a
tremendous respect for the work that our people do, day in and
day out, to fight violent crime, combat gang violence, and
improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods throughout our
country.
I must admit however, that I was unaware of the full depth
and breadth of the agency's mission, responsibilities and
contributions to the safety and security of our country. I very
much appreciate the subcommittee's support of our agency, in
particular the interest you have taken in our mission and our
programs.
Thanks to the leadership of this subcommittee and the
dedication and diligence of the men and women of ATF, our
efforts are producing real results that make our neighborhoods,
our country, and our world safer for everyone.
Finally before we proceed, like many others, I would like
to take a moment to offer my condolences to the victims, their
families, and the university community at Virginia Tech. This
truly was a national tragedy.
I have three college-aged children. As a parent and as a
citizen of the greatest country in the world, it horrifies me
that one of our Nation's top universities could serve as the
setting for such a horrendous and unthinkable crime of
violence. As you know and as you have pointed out, Chairwoman
Mikulski, State and local law enforcement authorities in
Virginia worked around the clock to investigate the matter and
find answers for the victims and their families.
ATF, along with our Federal partners, FBI, DEA, and the
U.S. Marshals Service, has been lending support to those State
and local agencies as requested and will continue to provide
any and all assistance that is asked of us.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Chairwoman Mikulski, I look forward to working with this
subcommittee and with you and will be pleased to answer any
questions you might have in the course of this hearing. Thank
you.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you Mr. Sullivan.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Sullivan
Madam Chairman, Senator Shelby, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you for the first time to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). I very much
appreciate the Subcommittee's support of ATF and the interest you have
taken in our mission and programs. Thanks to the leadership of this
Subcommittee, and the dedication and diligence of the men and women of
ATF, our efforts are producing real results that make our neighborhoods
and country safer.
atf's mission
As you know, ATF is a principal law enforcement agency within the
Department of Justice dedicated to reducing violent crime, preventing
terrorism and protecting our Nation. The men and women of ATF perform
the dual responsibilities of enforcing Federal criminal laws and
regulating the firearms and explosives industries. The combined efforts
of special agents and industry operations investigators allow ATF to
effectively identify, investigate, and recommend for prosecution
violators of Federal firearms and explosives laws; additionally, their
teamwork enables ATF to ensure that licensees are operating within
established laws and regulations. We are committed to pursuing our
mission by working both independently and through partnerships with
industry and other Federal, State, local and international law
enforcement agencies.
accomplishments
Over the past fiscal year, ATF has initiated criminal
investigations in the following areas: 29,166 firearms cases; 4,060
arson and explosives cases; 2,023 gang-related cases; 135 alcohol and
tobacco diversion cases; and 47 explosives thefts, which included 3,977
pounds of explosives, 3,627 detonators and 25,107 feet of detonator
cord.
In addition, in fiscal year 2006, ATF conducted 12,148 inspections
of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) and 6,392 inspections of Federal
Explosives Licensees (FEL). We also processed: 401,792 National
Firearms Act (NFA) weapons registrations; 284,443 firearms trace
requests; 37,390 FFL applications and renewals; 5,524 FEL applications
and renewals; and 11,001 import permit applications.
ATF also provided important training not only for our own
personnel, but for our local, State, Federal and international law
enforcement partners. For instance, in fiscal year 2006, we provided
training for 816 members of the international law enforcement
community. We provided Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) training for
5,816 Assistant U.S. Attorneys, State and local prosecutors, State and
local police officers and sheriffs, and ATF Special Agents. We also
trained:
--Over 1,100 personnel, including 500 State and local investigators
and bomb squad personnel, in explosives-related courses,
including post-blast investigations;
--Over 700 explosives detection canine teams on peroxide-based
explosives;
--450 U.S. Marshal Court Security Officers on improvised explosive
device (IED) familiarization and security; and
--402 personnel in arson-related courses.
fiscal year 2008 budget request
For fiscal year 2008, ATF requests $1,013,980,000 and 5,032
positions, of which, 2,468 are agents. This request includes
$995,023,000 and 4,984 positions for current services and $18,957,000
and 48 positions for program improvements.
The program improvements include $8.9 million in increased funding
for the successful PSN initiative, ATF's firearms trafficking
enforcement teams, and participation in the National Gang Targeting,
Enforcement, and Coordination Center (GangTECC). These programmatic
increases would be an important investment in the pursuit of violent
offenders and the reclamation of communities from the scourge of gangs,
gun crime, and local, national and international gun trafficking
organizations.
An additional $10 million is being requested for continuation of
our current explosives programs which will further fulfill our
responsibilities under the Safe Explosives Act. These funds will ensure
that explosives industry members continue to receive their licenses in
a timely manner and will allow ATF to provide appropriate oversight
concerning the safe and secure storage of explosives.
project safe neighborhoods and anti-gang efforts
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ATF includes six additional
FTE (12 positions) and $2.2 million to enhance the Bureau's gang and
firearms enforcement efforts supporting PSN nationwide. ATF will apply
these resources to locations that have experienced an increase in
firearms violence and will focus them on multi-defendant conspiracies
and criminal organizations in an effort to take violent criminals off
the street.
ATF has been the lead Federal law enforcement agency for PSN since
its inception in May 2001, focusing on a wide range of firearms cases--
those involving Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO)
violations, firearms trafficking and the criminal possession of
firearms by convicted felons and other prohibited persons. As the only
Federal agency that focuses primarily on violent crime and the
regulation of commerce in firearms and explosives, ATF exercises unique
statutory authority over the ``tools of the trade'' that make gangs a
threat to public safety.
Nearly 2,000 of ATF's special agents are exclusively dedicated to
investigating violent crime and gangs. These agents work closely with
State and local law enforcement to investigate the most egregious
violent criminals and violent criminal organizations. This strategy is
employed effectively through ATF-led Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT),
which are currently deployed in 25 cities across the nation. During
fiscal year 2007, this number will expand by 5 additional cities
bringing the total number to 30. In addition, ATF participates with
State and local police and other Federal agencies on 110 anti-gang task
forces.
This past year ATF aggressively investigated and made significant
strides in combating violent gangs. In fiscal year 2006: 2,023 gang-
related cases were initiated by ATF--an increase of 157 percent from
2002, the first full year of PSN; 1,680 defendants referred by ATF in
gang-related cases were convicted--an increase of 289 percent from
2002; and 779 defendants in gang-related cases were sentenced, with an
average sentence of 107 months.
An outstanding example of our anti-gang efforts is Operation Mano
Dura, an investigation of the MS-13 gang conducted by our Baltimore
Field Division. Those indictments included charges of various RICO
predicate acts, including seven homicides and numerous other shootings,
beatings and other violent crimes in aid of racketeering. To date, 15
of the defendants have been convicted and 12 are awaiting trial. Nine
of these defendants are eligible for the death penalty.
Another noteworthy example is the arrest and indictment of 13
members of the MS-13 street gang in January following a year-long joint
investigation by ATF and the Nashville Metropolitan Police Department.
During the investigation, information was developed linking Nashville-
based MS-13 members and associates with seven shootings, three alleged
murders, several planned murders, threats, intimidation and many other
significant violent crimes, all of which occurred in 2006. The
defendants were indicted on RICO charges. Several of these defendants
also are eligible for death sentences.
The President has identified violent street gangs as a national
problem and has instructed the Department to institute strategies to
address this problem. ATF has been successful in targeting high crime
areas and dedicating investigative, inspection, analytical and
technological resources to reduce violent crime. Through these
strategies, ATF and the Department are acting decisively to demonstrate
to the American public that Federal law enforcement agencies are
working strategically to investigate, reduce and prevent violent crime.
The additional PSN funds we are requesting will build upon proven,
successful tactics: integrating regulatory enforcement, aggressive
investigation techniques and the utilization of technology to impact
violent crime.
ATF also is requesting two positions, two agents, and $373,000 to
dedicate to GangTECC. Established by the Attorney General, this new
national anti-gang force serves as a coordinating center for multi-
jurisdictional gang investigations involving Federal law enforcement
agencies. It also provides a clearinghouse for gang-related
intelligence data, assists in developing a refined understanding of the
national gang problem, proposes appropriate countermeasure strategies,
and supports the National Gang Intelligence Center. Currently, three
ATF special agents are supporting GangTECC. These agents are
facilitating the coordination of overlapping racketeering
investigations and ensuring that tactical and strategic intelligence is
shared between law enforcement agencies. Moreover, an ATF agent is
currently serving as the initial Deputy Director of GangTECC. GangTECC
provided important assistance in the aforementioned arrests and
indictments of the Nashville-based MS-13 gang members. Specifically, it
facilitated communications among the various law enforcement agencies
involved in the case, arranged for other Federal agents to support the
investigation as needed, and arranged an urgent translation and
transcription of communications that were garnered through undercover
operations.
firearms trafficking
Street gangs are often involved in firearms trafficking in order to
supply guns to gang members and criminals in furtherance of drug
trafficking and in the commission of other violent firearms-related
crimes. To successfully fight violent crime, it is essential to prevent
the illegal flow of firearms to criminals. ATF's firearms trafficking
interdiction efforts advance this goal by identifying and arresting
those persons who illegally supply firearms to gang members and
prohibited persons such as felons and juveniles.
ATF is requesting 34 positions, of which all are agents, and $6.3
million to expand its domestic firearms trafficking enforcement efforts
along the Southwest Border and nationwide to target efforts on certain
gun trafficking corridors. With this funding, ATF will establish
investigative teams that will be devoted to firearms trafficking
interdiction efforts in areas of the country with the highest levels of
out-of-State guns recovered in crimes.
ATF will use its analytical resources to strategically deploy these
teams. To date, ATF has determined that the following routes are
significant regional, national and international trafficking corridors:
The Southwest Border; the I-95 corridor between Miami and Boston;
Northern rural Mississippi to Chicago; Northern Indiana to Chicago; the
triangle between Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix; and Birmingham to
Chicago.
Several of these trafficking routes impact not only local and
regional crime patterns, but also have international significance,
affecting our neighbors in Canada and Mexico, as well as other Central
and South American nations.
In fiscal year 2006, 1,526 ATF-referred defendants in firearms
trafficking cases were convicted. This represents an increase of 166
percent from 2002, the first full year of PSN.
A noteworthy example of a firearms trafficking case is Operation
Flea Collar, a complex, 2-year undercover investigation during which
ATF learned that two suspected traffickers were purchasing firearms at
an FFL in Alabama and then selling them at flea markets and gun shows
in northern Alabama. Further investigation identified unlicensed
firearms dealers at those flea markets. It also revealed a recurring
scheme whereby gang members or their designees were routinely
dispatched to the Alabama flea markets and gun shows to purchase
firearms in bulk for use by various street gangs. Ultimately, ATF
agents estimated that the various suspects had sold thousands of
firearms over the last several decades. At least 12 of the trafficked
firearms have been associated with homicide investigations, including
one linked to the attempted murder of a Chicago police officer. Many of
the trafficked firearms also have been linked to robberies, assaults,
drug crimes and sex crimes throughout the United States. The firearms
have been recovered in numerous States, including Alabama, California,
Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Washington, DC. Operation Flea Collar concluded
with the seizure of 556 firearms and the arrest of 18 individuals on
charges stemming from the illegal sale of firearms without a license
and the illegal sale of firearms to convicted felons and out-of-state
residents. All 18 suspects have been convicted and sentenced, and the
investigation is ongoing.
Another example of a significant trafficking case involved guns and
drugs moving between West Virginia and New York City. In 2004, our
Wheeling Field Office opened a firearms trafficking investigation of
two corrupt pawn dealers located in Fairmont, West Virginia. During the
course of these investigations, special agents uncovered an interstate
conspiracy to traffic crack cocaine in Fairmont and illegally traffic
firearms to New York City. This investigation resulted in the Federal
conviction of three individuals for conspiracy and three other persons
for Federal firearms and narcotics charges.
One final noteworthy example of a firearms trafficking case
involved members of the ``Bloods'' street gang in New Jersey arranging
for students at Wilberforce University in Ohio to conduct straw
purchases of firearms in Ohio and transport them to New Jersey. The
gang members who received the firearms used them for an assortment of
violent crimes in New Jersey, including a drive-by shooting, armed
robbery, crack cocaine distribution and an attempted home invasion.
This 2-year investigation resulted in the conviction of 12 defendants
for Federal firearms violations for trafficking 146 firearms.
ATF is attempting to balance the resources it devotes to fighting
violent crime and addressing the supply of firearms to criminals.
Successfully tackling the problem of firearms trafficking requires a
comprehensive effort and a multifaceted approach utilizing court-
authorized electronic surveillance, undercover operations, source
development and cooperation with other law enforcement entities in
order to be truly effective in shutting down illegal firearms markets.
other programs and activities
In addition to PSN and firearms trafficking enforcement, ATF has
other significant operations that are essential to carrying out our
mission. Our law enforcement and regulatory responsibilities require
ATF to maintain a host of efficient and effective activities, programs
and facilities. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a
few important initiatives.
Firearms Enforcement and Investigation
In response to firearms trafficking and related violence on both
sides of the border with Mexico, ATF has developed a Southwest Border
Initiative. This initiative coordinates the resources of ATF's Dallas,
Houston, Los Angeles and Phoenix Field Divisions, as well as Violent
Crime Impact Teams (VCIT) in Laredo, Houston, Albuquerque and Tucson.
The initiative focuses regional and cross-border violence and firearms
trafficking by employing geographic targeting, partnerships, technology
and training. In addition to working with local law enforcement, ATF
also is collaborating closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) and Mexican officials. In fact, ATF meets regularly with its U.S.
and Mexican law enforcement partners to discuss strategies, share
intelligence, and initiate cooperative efforts to combat crime along
the southwest border. One important effort we are undertaking through
partnership with the Mexican government is ensuring that U.S.-sourced
firearms recovered in Mexico are properly identified, documented and
submitted to ATF for tracing. ATF uses the trace results to identify
and investigate firearms traffickers who illegally divert firearms to
drug traffickers. To this end, we will deploy across Mexico our eTrace
system, an Internet-based system for submitting firearms trace
requests.
In order to reduce violent crime, ATF has and will continue to
develop technology to assist law enforcement at all levels. Through our
National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), ATF deploys
automated ballistics comparison equipment to participating Federal,
State, and local law enforcement forensics laboratories--230 sites in
total--which provides the ability to identify ballistic links between
crimes that might not otherwise be connected. As of December 2006,
NIBIN had nearly 1.25 million images of casings and bullets in its
database with nearly 19,000 ``hits.'' NIBIN has many success stories,
including a recent one from Buffalo, New York. In this case, the
ballistics evidence gathered at eleven separate shooting scenes between
June 2003 and October 2006 was linked to a single .45 caliber handgun
using the NIBIN ballistic imaging system at the Erie County Forensic
Laboratory. On November 13, 2006, the Buffalo Police Department
executed a narcotics search warrant and recovered narcotics, firearms
and ammunition. A recovered firearm was processed by the Erie County
Laboratory and identified as the handgun used in the eleven shootings.
Explosives and Arson
ATF's arson and explosives National Response Teams (NRT) provide
expert assistance at the scenes of significant fire or explosives
incidents. The NRT is comprised of veteran special agents with
expertise in conducting post-blast investigations and determining the
origin and cause of fires. In addition, the NRT is supported by all of
ATF's arson and explosives assets, such as the Fire Research Laboratory
(FRL), accelerant detection canines and audit services. In 2006, the
NRT was deployed 17 times. For example, in February 2006, it was
deployed to assist in the investigation of nine fires that occurred in
churches in western Alabama. After a month of intense investigation,
three suspects were arrested for the church fires.
ATF's technical expertise is also evidenced by our three state-of-
the-art forensic laboratories and one-of-a-kind FRL. In fiscal year
2006, our National Laboratory Center in Ammendale, Maryland, added DNA
analysis capability to its already impressive collection of forensic
tools. The FRL, also located at our National Laboratory Center, has the
capability of simulating fire scenarios approaching a quarter-acre in
size, under controlled conditions, allowing for detailed analysis. It
is the only such facility in the United States dedicated to providing
case support in fire investigations using forensic fire science.
The U.S. Bomb Data Center (USBDC) is the Department's comprehensive
repository of data pertaining to arson and explosives incidents. The
information within the USBDC is accessible to our law enforcement
partners and can be analyzed to determine trends, patterns, criminal
methodologies, and, in some cases, suspects. The USBDC contains more
than 140,000 records. Law enforcement officials can query the
characteristics of an explosive device and match it to others with
similar characteristics. USBDC houses several databases, including the
Bomb and Arson Tracking System (BATS), which facilitates and promotes
the collection and dissemination of data among local law enforcement on
arson and explosives incidents, and DFuze, which allows international
law enforcement agencies to compare and exchange information on
incidents within their jurisdictions. The USBDC has adopted a new
``Concept of Operations'' to guide it into the future. Under this plan,
USBDC will become a Center of Excellence, hosting not only law
enforcement officials, but also members of the intelligence community
as well as representatives from academia and industry. USBDC will
continue to consolidate all explosives incidents information and
databases in an effort to be the ``one-stop shop'' for explosives
incident information.
Our regulatory responsibilities include enforcement of the Safe
Explosives Act of 2002, which mandates a field inspection on all
original and renewal applications for explosives licensees or
permitees. Because most licenses and permits expire every 3 years, ATF
is mandated to perform one inspection per licensee/permit user every 3
years. Over 5 billion pounds of explosives are manufactured, imported
and sold annually in the United States. ATF uses existing resources to
ensure that all violations noted in such inspections are appropriately
resolved. ATF also will continue to investigate all reported explosives
thefts, respond to and investigate bombings and other explosives
incidents, and assist local, State and other Federal agencies with
explosives related issues.
Sharing Our Expertise through Partnerships and Training
We are committed to pursuing our mission by working both
independently and through partnerships with industry and other Federal,
State, local and international law enforcement agencies. For instance,
our ``Don't Lie for the Other Guy'' program is a partnership with the
National Shooting Sports Foundation which helps educate FFLs on how to
identify and prevent straw purchases of firearms. We also have
partnered with The Fertilizer Institute to launch voluntary campaigns
to raise awareness of the sale, security, storage, and transportation
of ammonium nitrate, the substance that was mixed with fuel oil in the
Oklahoma City bombing. In addition, ATF has maintained outstanding
relationships with a number of influential professional organizations
including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators, the
National Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, and
the National Bomb Squad Commanders. ATF also has collaborative research
partnerships with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center; Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories; the
University of Missouri, Rolla; and the University of Massachusetts,
Lowell. Moreover, ATF closely and regularly collaborates with the
Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security; and other
components of the Department of Justice. We also work with INTERPOL and
EUROPOL; and representatives of foreign governments, including the
United Kingdom, Mexico, Colombia, Israel and Canada.
At ATF's Canine Training Center in Front Royal, Virginia, ATF
trains explosives detection and accelerant detection canines for use by
Federal, State, international and local law enforcement and public
safety officials. ATF is committed to ensuring that DOJ's canines
conform to applicable ATF standards. In order to keep canine
capabilities able to meet current threats, ATF has initiated a program
to offer advanced training in the detection of organic peroxide-based
explosives to law enforcement canine teams. At the request of the
National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board, ATF developed National
Odor Recognition Testing to verify that explosives detection canines
meet a national standard. During fiscal year 2006, the project
certified approximately 150 non-DOJ canine teams, and has already
certified 124 canine teams in fiscal year 2007. In addition, ATF has
trained more than 350 explosives detection canines in 16 countries.
With respect to training, the National Center for Explosives
Training and Research (NCETR) offers numerous advanced courses related
to explosives disposal and post-blast investigation techniques. NCETR
provides training for State, local and international law enforcement,
the U.S. Department of State and all branches of the Armed Forces. It
also provides training for Army explosives units prior to their
deployment in Iraq. NCETR has trained almost 6,000 bomb technicians and
investigators in explosives disposal and investigative techniques. Each
year, requests for explosives-related training have increased, and
present demand exceeds our capability. The fiscal year 2006 Conference
Agreement (Public Law 109-108) directed ATF to plan for the
construction of a permanent facility co-located with other law
enforcement and Federal government entities that provide similar
training and research. Subsequently, we have selected a site at
Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. To date, ATF has received a letter of
intent memo from Redstone Arsenal for a commitment of resources, such
as ranges, classrooms, explosives storage bunkers, land to build an
administration/classrooms building and housing billets. ATF also has an
interagency agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for design
and planning of the NCETR. This planned permanent facility for NCETR
will promote efficiency by consolidating other Department of Justice
and Department of Defense explosives training and research in one
location. These collective resources will provide a unique opportunity
to leverage assets, knowledge and expertise in the field, providing
Federal, State, local and international law enforcement explosives
expertise in one location.
Alcohol and Tobacco Diversion
ATF also combats the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco
products by criminal gangs, organized crime, and terrorist groups. The
illicit sale of these commodities causes a substantial loss of excise
tax revenue to both the Federal and State governments. Moreover, there
have been instances in which terrorist groups are using proceeds from
tobacco trafficking to finance their organizations and activities. By
utilizing the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, RICO, wire fraud,
mail fraud, and money laundering statutes, ATF has built complex cases
against individuals who have used proceeds from the illegal trafficking
of cigarettes to fund organized crime and terrorism. ATF's
investigations into illicit trafficking of tobacco products and
enforcement of existing statutes continue to become more refined. In
fiscal year 2002, 18 defendants were convicted on tobacco diversion-
related charges. Every year since, there has been an increase in the
number of defendants convicted of these crimes as a result of ATF's
efforts. In fiscal year 2006, 108 defendants were convicted of tobacco
diversion-related offenses as a result of ATF's work--that is a 600
percent increase in defendants convicted over a 5-year period. ATF will
continue to fight the illicit trafficking of both alcohol and tobacco
products, whether the means of illicit trafficking are more traditional
in nature or contemporary such as Internet sales.
International Programs
In addition to the training NCETR provides to Army explosives units
prior to their deployment to Iraq, ATF is lending its expertise to U.S.
efforts in Iraq in a variety of ways. Since March 2005, ATF has
deployed Special Agent Certified Explosives Specialists and Explosives
Enforcement Officers to support the Iraq Combined Exploitation Cells
(CEXC) within the U.S. Military Central Command. ATF explosives experts
provide onsite investigative assistance in processing post-blast
incidents directed at United States and allied forces and we also
provide post-blast training for the Iraqi National Police. In addition,
ATF employs explosives detection canine teams in Iraq and throughout
the Middle East--these teams often are directly responsible for
locating hidden explosives and weapons in enforcement actions conducted
by host governments against terrorist groups. Moreover, ATF has special
agents assigned to the Regional Crimes Liaison Office and the Major
Crimes Task Force in Iraq to assist in the investigation and
prosecution of war crimes and other criminal activity. ATF will
establish a temporary duty presence of four ATF agents at the new U.S.
Embassy in Baghdad later this year.
Finally, ATF is a managing partner in the Terrorist Explosive
Device Analytical Center (TEDAC). This joint DOJ-DOD program is housed
at the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, with an ATF special agent
serving as the Deputy Director. At the TEDAC, ATF and other partners
analyze IEDs from Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to identify bombers
and prevent further attacks. TEDAC's evaluation of terrorist IED
components to identify similarities and its collection of latent prints
and DNA from those devices helps identify bombing suspects and provides
vital intelligence to military and law enforcement officials.
closing
Chairman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of ATF, I thank you and
your staff for your support of our crucial work. While the list of ATF
programs and facilities I have noted today is far from comprehensive,
it is intended to provide the Subcommittee with a sampling of the depth
and breadth of our activities.
ATF is protecting the American public from the threats of violent
crime and terrorism. As noted previously, we initiated over 2,000 gang-
related cases in fiscal year 2006. That is an increase of over 157
percent from 2002, the first full year of PSN. We will continue to
enforce the Safe Explosives Act and provide the education and
regulatory oversight to an industry that manufactures, imports, and
sells over 5 billion pounds of explosives every year. ATF will continue
to investigate incidents involving nearly 4,000 pounds of stolen
explosives, and we will continue to inspect approximately 12,000
Federal Explosives Licensees and Permitees. We also will continue to
share our expertise with our partners and provide invaluable training
in a number of areas, including courses on post-blast investigative
techniques and courses for explosives detection canine teams.
With the backing of your Subcommittee, ATF can continue to build on
these accomplishments, making our nation even more secure. The $2.2
million we have requested to expand PSN and the $6.3 million to
establish firearms trafficking teams are two important investments in
this cause. We look forward to working with you in pursuit of our
shared goals.
______
Biographical Sketch of Michael J. Sullivan
Michael J. Sullivan was designated the Acting Director of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in August
2006 by President George W. Bush. In this position, Sullivan oversees
nearly 5,000 ATF employees and an annual budget of close to $1 billion.
He ensures that ATF fulfills its mission of preventing terrorism,
reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation.
As United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts since
September 2001, Sullivan has worked aggressively to combat terrorism.
He established a counterterrorism unit in his office; formed an Anti-
Terrorism Task Force comprised of federal, state and local law
enforcement to prevent future terrorist attacks; and prosecuted the so-
called ``shoe bomber'' Richard Reid.
In addition to combating terrorism, Sullivan has focused on
protecting youth and safeguarding communities from the threat of
violence. As U.S. Attorney, Sullivan followed through on the
President's Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative to safeguard our
communities by developing a Community Prosecution and Crime Reduction
Unit to enforce the federal gun laws and develop highly targeted gun
crime reduction strategies. Through his innovative efforts, Sullivan
has elicited unprecedented cooperation among federal, State and local
law enforcement agencies to target gun crime in Boston and across the
State. From fiscal year 2000-2005, Sullivan increased federal gun
prosecutions under existing laws by 114 percent in Massachusetts.
Sullivan also created a unit within his office to target computer
hacking and high technology crimes, including identity theft, Internet
auction and credit card fraud, economic espionage, copyright and
trademark violations. Under his leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office
in the District of Massachusetts has recovered more than $3 billion for
the federal government. Sullivan serves on the Attorney General's
Advisory Committee and chairs the Health Care Fraud Subcommittee.
Before serving as U.S. Attorney, Sullivan was appointed District
Attorney of Plymouth County by Massachusetts Governor William F. Weld
in May 1995. He was elected to the position in November 1996 and again
in 1998. One of Sullivan's top priorities during his tenure as District
Attorney was to address the issue of unsolved homicides in the county.
This initiative resulted in the resolution of a significant number of
murders. In addition, he became known as a leader in the fight against
child abuse, domestic violence and elder abuse.
Sullivan began his public service in 1990 when he was elected to
the Massachusetts State House of Representatives, where he served for
three terms. As a legislator, Sullivan was a strong proponent of
criminal justice reform.
Prior to his public service, Sullivan worked at the Gillette
Company for 16 years. He started as a stock clerk at the age of 18 and
rose to positions in human resource management and quality operations
before becoming assistant to the president. While employed at Gillette,
Sullivan graduated from Boston College cum laude and Suffolk University
Law School cum laude.
Drug Enforcement Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN P. TANDY, ADMINISTRATOR
Senator Mikulski. Ms. Tandy.
Ms. Tandy. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee
and Ranking Member Senator Shelby, it is my pleasure to discuss
the President's 2008 budget request for the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
I want to thank this subcommittee for its support of DEA as
we lead the Nation's fight against drugs and Senator Mikulski,
we are particularly grateful to you for including the $25
million in the supplemental spending bill that would lift our
hiring freeze at DEA and fund our counterterrorism initiatives.
In unprecedented numbers, DEA has been toppling cartel
kingpins and stripping their drug trafficking organizations,
not only of massive amounts of drugs, but also their illicit
revenues. By 2009, our goal is to take $3 billion each year
from these international drug trafficking networks that are
operating in this country.
In the last 2 years combined, we stripped drug trafficking
organizations of $3.5 billion in revenue through the seizure of
assets and drugs and already, just halfway through this fiscal
year of 2007, we have seized an astounding $1.1 billion. This
figure includes $90 million in cash and gold that DEA and our
Colombian partners stripped from the North Valley cartel in
January. For 60 days thereafter this was the world record for
cash seizures until our Mexican partners, with whom we have
been working more closely than ever over the past year, made
the single largest cash seizure that the world has ever seen
stripping methamphetamine chemical traffickers of $207 million
in cash. That is the cash that's reflected here in this poster
before the subcommittee.
Two days later DEA information resulted in another record
setting seizure. This time instead of cash it was drugs, 21
tons of cocaine off of the coast of Panama that was worth more
than $300 million wholesale which is the photo on the two
posters to my left.
Senator Mikulski. So it's one that, trifocals, always there
where you don't need them but is that like a container ship?
Where the cargo was literally drugs?
Ms. Tandy. That is correct. It was a container ship off of
Panama. The actual 21 tons of cocaine was brazenly on top of
the deck of the container ship without concealment.
With these unrelated operations, DEA dealt Mexican
traffickers a one, two punch. They're down more than $500
million in blood money in simply 48 hours. Other enforcement
actions have impacted these traffickers as well.
In January, DEA agents took custody of 10 major drug
traffickers on U.S. soil in an unprecedented extradition from
Mexico. These extraditions included violent kingpins and
leaders from all four of Mexico's major drug cartels and with
us, as we took custody, were the United States Marshals to whom
we turned these traffickers over.
Less than 2 months ago, DEA dismantled the United States
infrastructure of a powerful Mexican drug cartel that Senator
Shelby referenced in his opening statement. As the Senator
noted, that included the arrest of more than 400 members of
this organization throughout the United States, the seizure of
$46 million in cash as well as 18 tons of marijuana, cocaine,
meth, and heroin and thanks to Federal legislation that was
passed by Congress, as well as State legislation and toughened
enforcement efforts over the last 5 years, we've slashed the
number of small toxic meth labs in this country by 61 percent
and super lab seizures are down in the United States,
plummeting 94 percent.
All of these efforts by DEA and our partners are affecting
drug organizations financially and operationally. According to
recent intelligence, some trafficking organizations are now
having difficulty finding transportation groups to move cocaine
from Mexico to the United States. That in turn has led to a
significant surcharge to the price of a kilogram of cocaine and
in addition to that are some U.S. based meth traffickers that
are having difficulty acquiring meth from some sources of
supply in Mexico.
I believe I'm taking the hint here that I am.
Senator Mikulski. First of all what you've just told us is
a phenomenal set of accomplishments. They're breathtaking and
you go ahead and you finish your testimony, don't worry about
some little huchipoo red light going off.
You've got the green light after what you're telling us to
do anything you want to do here today.
Ms. Tandy. You are very generous, Senator. Thank you so
much.
These DEA victories in reducing the drug supply have also
contributed to the 23 percent drop in our Nation's drug use
over the past 5 years because as this subcommittee well knows,
if drugs are plentiful, the demand reduction education efforts
will not take root and drug treatment won't succeed.
Despite these achievements though, DEA does face challenges
fighting an evolving drug trade. First, we no longer just fight
traditional drugs of abuse. In just 5 years the number of
Americans abusing prescription drugs rose more than two-thirds,
from 3.8 million abusers to 6.4 million and fueling this
increase is the proliferation of illicit Internet web sites
that make it possible with one simple click to purchase
controlled substances. With additional funds DEA can do more of
these online diversion investigations.
Second, we need to increase our enforcement along the
Southwest border where approximately 85 percent of the drugs
are smuggled into this country. Additional funds will allow us
to step up our fight there with improvements to our aviation,
surveillance, and communication systems.
A third challenge is our limited intelligence
infrastructure. For example, if a multi-ton load of cocaine is
seized off the African coast and DEA received classified
intelligence about it, we need to pass that classified
intelligence and work that information via our classified
backbone which is known as our Merlin System.
The problem is that we do not have the Merlin System in
computer terminals anywhere in Africa or the Middle East. These
computers are in limited places in South America and Europe.
The ones we do have in the United States are aging and in dire
need of upgrades and without an enhancement DEA cannot readily
share and investigate the kind of information that's necessary
to take down the drug trafficking cartels or to fulfill our
responsibilities in the intelligence community.
Finally, intercepting traffickers' communications has been
DEA's most valuable weapon and traffickers now have the
Internet and encrypted communications technology at their
disposal. Consequently we are seeking an enhancement to expand
our Internet capabilities so that we can get a trafficker's
encrypted communications in the same way as we now get the
trafficker's land line and cell phone conversations through a
court order.
PREPARED STATEMENT
These budget enhancements would allow DEA to fight the drug
trade across our Nation, the globe and cyberspace and it will
also help put the DEA back on a solid financial footing that's
necessary to carry out these responsibilities and on behalf of
the almost 11,000 men and women of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, I thank this subcommittee for all of your
support throughout the years that we have been undertaking
these challenges. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Miss Tandy. I think
it shows how important this hearing is and Mr. Clark why don't
you tell us how the marshals ride a different kind of posse but
still come in to save Miss Kitty and a lot of other people in
the community.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Karen P. Tandy
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Good morning, and
thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA). I have had the pleasure of working closely with some of you over
the last four years. To those Members who are new to this panel, I
welcome the opportunity to share the DEA story and to express my
appreciation to you in advance for supporting the courageous men and
women of the DEA.
I am privileged to lead a worldwide drug law enforcement
organization of more than 10,000 people, including over 700 people
stationed in 62 countries. DEA employs a time-tested, multi-front
strategy to fight global drug traffickers that are motivated solely by
the desire for profit--profits that are generated by human misery. We
must battle these well-organized, highly sophisticated organizations at
every juncture: from the cultivation or manufacturing stage, through
the transit zones to final distribution in our nation's communities;
and, finally, we must be there when they launder the proceeds of their
operations.
The criminals we investigate are located throughout the world and
we search them out wherever they are: in both hemispheres and
increasingly in the ever-expanding realm of the Internet. We attack the
economic basis of the drug trade and reduce the diversion of licit
drugs. We support counterterrorism activities, assist our state and
local law enforcement partners, and serve as an information resource
for state and local communities to help them reduce the demand for
illicit drugs.
The support that this Committee provides allows us to work toward
making America's neighborhoods safe and drug-free, and for that, we at
DEA are very grateful.
I would like to begin my testimony by sharing two pieces of good
news with the Committee: First, teenage drug use is down; and second,
DEA is hitting the world's drug traffickers harder than ever before.
teenage drug use is down
In 2002, the President set ambitious goals to reduce drug use: a 10
percent reduction over two years and a 25 percent reduction over five
years. We have exceeded the first goal: drug use by young people is
down 11 percent. And the second goal has nearly been reached: since
2001, overall illicit drug use among teens has declined by 23 percent.
This data, released in December 2006 by the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (NIDA) means that 840,000 fewer teenagers have been damaged by
the corrosive effect of drugs.
Some specifics from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) report include: marijuana use among teenagers
has dropped by 25 percent since 2001; methamphetamine use by teenagers
is down by 50 percent since 2001; ecstasy use by 8th graders decreased
by 61 percent and dropped by 54 percent for 10th and 12th graders since
2001; cocaine use among high school seniors declined by 55 percent
between 1986 and 2006; steroid use by teenagers decreased by 20
percent; LSD use fell by 60 percent for 8th graders, by 53 percent
among 10th graders, and by 74 percent among high school seniors.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, DEA works 24/7 to
enforce our country's federal drug laws. Aggressive enforcement not
only limits supply and increases the price of drugs, it provides a
deterrent effect that may contribute to the decline in drug use. We who
fight very hard to keep the poisonous chemicals from reaching young
people see the statistics I just cited as a very positive trend. We
hope it represents a fundamental and lasting downward shift in illicit
drug use among young Americans.
enforcement successes over the last 12 months
I would also like to share with you some of DEA's most significant
accomplishments during the past year. For example, just one month ago,
our partners in Mexico, with whom we have been working over the last
year on a pseudoephedrine investigation, made the single largest
worldwide cash seizure--$207 million in U.S. currency. Forty-eight
hours later, as a result of joint DEA and Panama law enforcement
intelligence, the U.S. Coast Guard made the largest maritime seizure on
record--21 metric tons of cocaine bound for Mexico. The seizure denied
Mexican drug lords $300 million in drug revenue and severely disrupted
their transportation network.
In the information that follows, I will highlight some individual
cases and discuss the underlying strategies that led to such successful
operations. An attachment to my statement provides an overview of the
leading drug threats facing the United States and some additional
examples of DEA's work against each of these threats.
Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade
Successes include:
--Indicting 50 leaders of a designated Colombian foreign terrorist
organization on charges of importing more than $25 billion
worth of cocaine into the United States. This represents more
than 60 percent of the cocaine entering the country.
--Dismantling the Cali Cartel of Colombia, which is responsible for
the export of multi-ton maritime shipments of cocaine to the
United States. High ranking cartel members were sentenced in
2006, with resulting forfeitures of more than $300 million.
During the 1990s, the cartel was one of the world's most
powerful criminal organizations, estimated at one time to be
responsible for up to 80 percent of the cocaine smuggled into
the United States.
--Arresting more than 400 individuals nationwide, following a 20-
month, DEA-led investigation into a Mexican drug syndicate and
its U.S.-based distribution cells. The investigation has
resulted in the seizure of approximately $45.2 million in U.S.
currency, 27,229 pounds of marijuana, 9,512 pounds of cocaine,
705 pounds of methamphetamine, 227 pounds of pure
methamphetamine or ``ice'', 11 pounds of heroin, $6.1 million
in property and assets, and 100 weapons and 94 vehicles.
--Arresting a Canadian international money manager who, subsequently,
was indicted for conspiracy to launder $1 billion in proceeds
from narcotics trafficking and securities and bank fraud.
--Dismantling a Brazilian Consolidated Priority Organization Target
(CPOT)--the world's ``Most Wanted'' drug trafficking and money
laundering organizations that was responsible for smuggling
into the United States more than 15 tons of cocaine each month
from Colombia. The dismantlement resulted in 100 arrests and
the seizure of 52 tons of cocaine and nearly $70 million in
assets, including three islands off the coast of Panama.
--Extraditing a Colombian drug kingpin to the United States who had
been indicted for importing cocaine and heroin worth an
estimated $100 million.
--Dismantling a Canadian-based trafficking organization that smuggled
more than $5 million worth of ecstasy from Canada into the
United States.
--Arresting 26 members of a Colombian organization that laundered
millions of Colombian dollars through the Black Market Peso
Exchange. As part of the operation, more than $10 million in
drug proceeds and $6.5 million in cocaine, heroin, and
marijuana were seized.
--Arresting three Colombian traffickers who laundered $3 million in
proceeds that were derived from cocaine distribution rings that
operated internationally in Colombia, Mexico, and Europe.
Reducing the Diversion of Licit Drugs
Successes include:
--Immediately suspending the DEA registrations of 13 pharmacies that
used their DEA registrations to fill controlled substances
orders for rogue Internet pharmacies. Eight of the 13
suspensions were issued in February 2007. The pharmacies
suspended were responsible for distributing more than 75
million dosage units of controlled substances in 2006, the vast
majority of which was distributed based on invalid
prescriptions originating with rogue Internet pharmacy
websites. Ten of the pharmacies together purchased 45 million
dosage units of hydrocodone, which is 64 times the amount ten
average pharmacies would annually dispense.
--Overseeing the largest steroid enforcement operation in U.S.
history. On December 14, 2005, Operation Gear Grinder resulted
in the arrest of five individuals who were responsible for
importing anabolic steroids into the United States. This
international investigation targeted the eight largest anabolic
steroid manufacturing companies in Mexico, including three of
the world's largest that conducted their sales via the
Internet. Nearly 82 percent of the steroids seized and analyzed
in 2003 are of Mexican origin and the majority of this 82
percent originated from the eight companies charged in
Operation Gear Grinder.
--Arresting four individuals in Miami, Florida, who have been charged
with the nationwide Internet distribution of large quantities
of Schedule III and Schedule IV controlled substances. Sales
exceeded $200 million over a three-year period. The
investigation included the seizure of $817,000 in cash, $4.2
million worth of property, two automobiles, and one marine
vessel.
--Indicting 11 individuals and an Atlanta-based company on charges of
mail fraud, distribution of controlled substances, and the
introduction of adulterated and misbranded drugs. The
defendants allegedly manufactured millions of pills--
approximately 24 different drugs--that were marketed through
Internet ``spam'' advertisements. In addition to the forfeiture
of numerous properties, automobiles and bank accounts, the
indictment is seeking a monetary judgment of not less than
$19.8 million.
--Arresting five individuals in the Chicago, Illinois area, as part
of an operation involving the illegal Internet distribution of
prescription drugs and anabolic steroids. The diversion scheme
included the wire transfers of thousands of dollars, and the
Internet distribution of thousands of dosage units of
controlled substances lacking valid prescriptions.
Working With State and Local Law Enforcement Organizations
Successes include:
--Dismantling the largest marijuana-laced candy manufacturing
organization in the western United States. The five-month
investigation resulted in the arrest of the organization's
leader, and the seizure of more than 4,000 marijuana plants,
$100,000 in U.S. currency, three firearms, and hundreds of
marijuana-laced food products. The marijuana-laced products,
packaged to mimic legitimate food products, included labels
such as ``Buddafingers,'' ``Munchy Way,'' and ``Pot Tarts.''
The items were packaged in large boxes for distribution to
cannabis clubs throughout the West Coast and over the Internet.
--Working with the St. Paul, Minnesota Police Department on an
operation that resulted in the arrest of 26 individuals
associated with the Latin Kings street gang. The arrests, one
of the largest drug takedowns in Minnesota history, were based
on narcotics and firearms conspiracy violations and the
possession and distribution of methamphetamine, cocaine, and
marijuana.
--Working with the New York City Police Department on an operation
that resulted in the arrest of 20 individuals involved in a
Panama/U.S. heroin drug smuggling operation. The smuggling was
carried out by dozens of ``swallowers'' who were paid a fee
plus reimbursements for airfare and hotel expenses. Over three
kilograms of heroin were seized in the New York City area, and
$300,000 in wire transfer receipts was recovered.
--Working with Seattle, Washington area law enforcement agencies on
an operation that targeted violent methamphetamine traffickers,
resulted in the arrests of 38 individuals. The investigation
netted the seizure of methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine,
crack cocaine, oxycodone, eight weapons, and 10 vehicles.
--Working with St. Louis, Missouri area law enforcement agencies on
an operation that resulted in the indictment of 30 individuals
on charges of distributing approximately 50 kilograms of
cocaine with a street value of $1 million.
The accomplishments just listed are impressive on their own. But,
they are the result of a carefully planned strategy that guides DEA
operations around the world.
Attacking the Drug Syndicates.--Significantly reducing the supply
of illicit drugs is attainable if we disrupt or dismantle the drug
trafficking and money laundering organizations that are primarily
responsible for supplying them. At DEA, we refer to this approach as
priority targeting. By using intelligence that we meticulously gather
to identify the syndicates and coordinating our investigations against
all levels of the drug and money supply chain, we are able to focus on
the most important links in the supply chain.
We are proud of our successes. In fiscal year 2006, 85 percent (39
of 46) of the leaders of the most wanted international drug
organizations (CPOTs) were indicted and 37 percent (17) were arrested.
Terrorist-linked Priority Target Organization (PTO) investigations
increased by 16 percent, comparing fiscal year 2005 investigations (82)
to fiscal year 2006 investigations (95). Furthermore, between fiscal
years 2003 and 2006, 13 drug organizations with terrorist links were
disrupted and 20 were dismantled.
Attacking the Economic Basis of the Drug Trade.--As a federal
prosecutor, I saw firsthand the importance and value of stripping drug
traffickers of their revenue. It works. I brought that experience with
me when I came to DEA and shortly thereafter developed a five-year
revenue denial plan. In the first two years, DEA has denied more than
$3.5 billion through the seizures of both assets and drugs. This total
amount exceeds the goal for the first two years of the plan by $1
billion. The $1.6 billion denied in fiscal year 2006, includes $1.1
billion in total assets and cash seized. With regard to high-value cash
seizures (those over $1 million), 63 were made in fiscal year 2006,
which represents a 44 percent increase since fiscal year 2004. DEA's
Money Trail Initiative, launched in 2005, is a financial crime strategy
that focuses on identifying and disrupting the flow of money back to
the sources of drug supply, thereby crippling the ability of criminals
to operate. In 2006, Money Trail operations resulted in more than 400
arrests and the seizure of approximately 10,000 kilograms of cocaine,
60,000 kilograms of marijuana, 9 kilograms of heroin, approximately 300
pounds of methamphetamine, more than 60 dosage units of MDMA, 250
vehicles, approximately 80 weapons, $65 million U.S. currency, and
$14.6 million in other assets. Our fiscal year 2006 financial
investigations of PTOs increased by 28 percent over fiscal year 2005
(117 active cases in fiscal year 2005; 150 active cases in fiscal year
2006). The number of financial investigation cases in fiscal year 2006
that led to the disruption of a PTO increased by 100 percent over
fiscal year 2005 (9 cases in fiscal year 2005; 18 cases in fiscal year
2006). The number of financial investigation cases in fiscal year 2006
that led to the dismantlement of a PTO increased by 138 percent over
fiscal year 2005 (8 cases in fiscal year 2005; 19 cases in fiscal year
2006).
Forging International Partnerships--Mexico.--Experience has shown
that strong international partnerships are vital in the drug law
enforcement arena. A robust U.S./Mexico partnership, for example, is
key if we are to reduce significantly the flow of drugs to the United
States from Mexico, and halt the smuggling of the millions of pounds of
bulk cash into Mexico that were generated from the sale of billions of
dollars worth of illicit drugs in the United States. The 2007 National
Drug Threat Assessment, which is prepared by the Justice's National
Drug Intelligence Center, states that ``The Southwest Border remains a
serious area of concern for U.S. drug money laundering.'' Furthermore,
the assessment states that ``Mexican and Colombian Drug Trafficking
Organizations (DTOs) together generate, remove, and launder between
$8.3 billion and $24.9 billion in wholesale distribution proceeds from
Mexico-produced marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin and South
American cocaine and heroin annually.'' Working with the Mexican and
Colombian governments will help address this major problem. In May
2006, the Attorney General unveiled a strategy to combat
methamphetamine that calls for joint DEA/Mexico initiatives including:
establishing specialized methamphetamine enforcement teams on either
side of the border; developing a list for targeting the Most Wanted
chemical and drug trafficking organizations; donating refurbished DEA
clandestine laboratory enforcement trucks to Mexico for specialized
enforcement teams' use. Since the launch of the strategy, over 2,100
Mexican police officers have been trained to improve their
methamphetamine trafficking investigative and enforcement skills.
The U.S./Mexico partnership has already begun paying dividends. In
August 2006, Mexican authorities seized a large-scale clandestine
methamphetamine laboratory. The seizure netted 100 kilograms of
finished methamphetamine, 3,000 liters of various solvents and
chemicals, and four barrels of iodine. Due to its size and production
capability, the laboratory is classified as a ``super lab''. More
recently, a DEA-trained unit of Mexican police officers discovered an
operational super methamphetamine laboratory in December 2006, that,
based on the amount of equipment, chemicals and resources discovered,
is likely the largest laboratory to be found in Mexico to date.
With regard to major arrests, a DEA-led Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation led to the August 2006
apprehension of the leader of a Mexican narcotics trafficking
organization that, over the past decade, has flooded our country with
hundreds of tons of cocaine and marijuana, as well as very large
quantities of methamphetamine and heroin. The leader, Francisco Javier
Arellano-Felix, and one of his lieutenants, Manuel Arturo Villarrel-
Heredia, have been charged with racketeering, drug trafficking, and
money laundering offenses, and if convicted will be eligible for the
death penalty.
The January 2007 extradition of 15 violent Mexican criminals,
including the leaders from all four of Mexico's major drug cartels, was
a watershed event in the annals of U.S./Mexico relations. The
extraditions mark the reversal of a long-standing Mexican government
policy of not extraditing jailed citizens until the sentences handed
down by Mexican courts had been served. One of the extradited kingpins
commanded a drug cartel considered to be among the most brutal and
powerful in the world. He directed the smuggling of between four and
six tons of cocaine per month over the U.S. border. It is a drug law
enforcement development of enormous significance, and we view it as
major progress on more than one front.
Forging International Partnerships--Afghanistan.--Combating the
world-wide threat posed by heroin production in Afghanistan is a major
challenge. A flourishing narcotics trade further weakens an already
fragile country, and it must be attacked aggressively. For our part,
DEA and the government of Afghanistan have formed a partnership with
the goal of developing and expanding the capabilities of its law
enforcement community. Our five Foreign-deployed Advisory and Support
Teams advise, train, and mentor their Afghan counterparts in the
National Interdiction Unit of the Counter Narcotics Police--
Afghanistan. This program supplements our Kabul Country Office as well
as ``Operation Containment'', a successful DEA initiative that was
launched post September 11, 2001. It emphasizes coordination and
information-sharing among 18 countries. Its aim is to choke the flow of
drugs, precursor chemicals, and money into and out of Afghanistan.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we are seeing results
from taking a regional, multi-national enforcement approach to a threat
with worldwide implications. Over the last two years, Operation
Containment has resulted in the seizure of approximately 17 metric tons
of heroin, more than 170 metric tons of marijuana, and nearly 300
opium-to-heroin conversion laboratories. Additionally, more than 900
suspects have been arrested, and of those arrests, four of the six Most
Wanted Operation Containment targets are now incarcerated. Moreover,
intelligence developed by DEA in conjunction with other agencies has
helped to thwart rocket and Improvised Explosive Device attacks on
Afghan and coalition forces in Afghanistan. The 2006 convictions and
sentencing of three major Afghan traffickers are yet another important
byproduct of the DEA/Afghanistan partnership.
As I conclude the discussion of international partnerships, I want
to add a few words about the International Drug Enforcement Conference
(IDEC). As you may know, this global forum was established in 1983, to
bring together high-level drug law enforcement officials from
throughout the Western Hemisphere. Its purpose is to share drug-related
information and to develop a coordinated approach to law enforcement
efforts against international drug organizations. As the DEA
Administrator, I am the Co-President of the IDEC. In May 2006, I had
the pleasure of addressing the conference's 24th gathering, which has
grown to include representatives from 76 countries located in both
hemispheres. Seven countries became new members in 2006: Afghanistan,
Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, and the United
Kingdom. The 2006 IDEC was a great opportunity to discuss our
respective challenges and frustrations and to talk about how we could
build on our accomplishments through even stronger multi-lateral
partnerships that are beneficial to all parties.
Fighting Methamphetamine--A Drug of Special Concern.--Before I
begin a discussion of our fiscal year 2008 budget request, I would like
to take a minute to talk about a drug of special concern to many
Members of Congress: methamphetamine.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, a 50 percent decline in
methamphetamine use by teenagers since 2001, as reported by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in December 2006, is a dramatic
and much-welcomed development. At the same time, this deadly drug
remains a problem. DEA takes a comprehensive approach to fighting the
drug--domestic and international enforcement and precursor chemical
control, the identification and cleanup of large and small toxic
laboratories, and an aggressive attack on the money flow. In fiscal
year 2006, DEA spent an estimated $217 million for methamphetamine-
related activities. This included approximately $196 million for
methamphetamine investigations and $21 million for clean-up, safety,
and training programs. DEA also provided clandestine laboratory
training to more than 1,000 state and local law enforcement officers
during fiscal year 2006.
Implementing The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.--The
provisions of the law aimed at the domestic and international
regulation of precursor chemicals make it possible to place reasonable,
common sense limitations on the availability of the products used in
the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Sales at the retail level are
controlled through such measures as keeping products stored in locked
containers, requiring face-to-face sales and photograph identification,
establishing additional record-keeping requirements for mail-order
sales, and requiring producers of Scheduled Listed Chemical Products to
make annual estimates of the quantities of the products needed for
legitimate use. These domestic regulatory requirements, coupled with
the enforcement actions being taken by states should lead to a decline
in the number of domestic operational clandestine laboratories.
Limiting sales at the wholesale level is another important part of the
equation. Under the law, foreign distributors are required to disclose
all known information to the importer on the chain of distribution of
such chemicals from the manufacturer to the importer. Furthermore, the
State Department is required to identify annually the five largest
exporting and importing countries of Scheduled Listed Chemical
Products, and DEA is given the authority to issue importation
prohibition orders. Taken together, these actions are expected to help
greatly on the international regulatory side. Effective methamphetamine
enforcement calls for a balanced approach that addresses the drug law
enforcement issues, while ensuring the availability of an adequate
supply of controlled substances to meet consumers' legitimate medical
needs.
despite the accomplishments, the challenges remain
Madam Chairman, DEA carefully manages the resources Congress
provides to ensure we wring every penny out of every dollar you give
us. And while we are proud of our many accomplishments, we never lose
sight of the fact that drug abuse remains a very serious problem facing
our country. The most recent data available from the federal Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention sadly reveals that in 2004, 30,711
Americans died from drug abuse. This is almost 2,000 more deaths than
occurred in 2003.
Compounding the loss of lives is the damage from increased crime
and violence, the powerful grip of addiction, lower productivity in the
workforce, child abuse and neglect, environmental danger, and the grief
of lost promise. Taken together, the effect of these human tragedies
eclipses even the very tragic impact of terrorism. And so, while we
realize our country faces tight budget times, we are here today to ask
you to give us a few more tools, a few more resources, so we can do a
little more to drive illegal drugs from our shores.
fiscal year 2008 budget request
For fiscal year 2008, DEA is requesting $2.4 billion ($1.8 billion
under the Salary and Expenses Account, $239 million under the Diversion
Control Fee Account, and $389 million for OCDETF activities and other
reimbursable agreements). A total of 10,239 positions, of which 4,811
are Special Agent positions, are requested from these funding sources.
This request represents an increase of $110 million over the fiscal
year 2007 President's budget, and was developed with the goal of
advancing DEA's enforcement strategy in the most efficient and
effective manner. It was developed through a planning process of
several months duration, calling upon the knowledge, talent, and skills
of many DEA professionals with years of experience in drug law
enforcement. Under the Salary and Expenses Account, the fiscal year
2008 request would provide funding for three initiatives. Fee Account
collections would fund companion initiatives in the diversion control
program.
salaries and expenses account
DEA is requesting $39.3 million to expand activities in three key
areas:
Southwest Border and Methamphetamine Enforcement Initiative ($29.2
million and 8 positions)
DEA is an active participant in the Southwest Border Initiative, a
cooperative effort launched in 1994 by federal law enforcement agencies
to combat the threat posed by Mexico-based trafficking groups operating
along the Southwest border. The Southwest Border and Methamphetamine
Enforcement Initiative that DEA is proposing would complement the 1994
initiative in an area of the country recognized as the principal
arrival zone for most illicit drugs smuggled into the United States, as
well as the predominant staging area for the subsequent distribution of
these drugs throughout the country. With regard to methamphetamine
alone, current drug and lab seizure data suggests that approximately 80
percent of the methamphetamine used in the United States originates
from larger laboratories operated by Mexican-based organizations on
both sides of the border. The data also suggests that the remaining
approximately 20 percent consumed is produced in small toxic labs.
DEA's Southwest Border and Methamphetamine Enforcement Initiative would
help DEA step up the fight on both sides of the border through
increases in our aviation assets, and improvements in our surveillance
and communications systems and data collection and analysis
capabilities.
Some specifics.--$15.4 million would be used to purchase, among
other things, three helicopters, each equipped with a High Definition
camera for complex aerial surveillance activities in support of our
major investigations. An additional $3.4 million would fund operational
expenses and equipment purchases needed for providing communications
coverage of remote areas along the border. Also requested is $3.4
million and two positions to design, develop and implement an advanced
digital imagery program for capturing and storing facial and other
identifiable images for drug trafficking organizations investigations.
To purchase advanced satellite telephone and maritime tracking devices,
and sensor and audio/video surveillance equipment, which often act as a
force multiplier, DEA is requesting a total of $5.1 million. The El
Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) developed Operation Gatekeeper to
research, analyze, and report information on the Mexican drug
trafficking organizations that control entry corridors along the
border. To expand this important operation, DEA is requesting $612,000
and six positions. And to expand its information sharing capabilities,
EPIC is requesting $3.4 million to develop the capacity to share
digital images with its Federal, State and local law enforcement
partners.
Counterterrorism and Intelligence Sharing Initiative ($7.1 million and
7 positions)
In 2006, after a 25-year hiatus, DEA's Office of National Security
Intelligence (NN) was designated a member of the Intelligence Community
(IC). While the designation does not grant new authorities to DEA, it
does formalize the long-standing relationship between DEA and the IC
and allows DEA and other IC members to work on issues of national
security interest in an integrated fashion. With over 33 years of
operational experience in the foreign arena and the largest U.S. law
enforcement presence abroad, DEA has made and will continue to make
many unique contributions, not only in drug law enforcement, but also
in the interest of national security. For example, with over 5,000
confidential sources, DEA possesses substantial human intelligence
capabilities. Additionally, DEA conducts 67 percent of all federal
domestic law enforcement wire taps.
An Overview Of The United States Intelligence Community--2007,
which was prepared by the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, states that ``DEA/NN's membership in the Community helps
optimize the overall U.S. government counter narcotics interdiction and
security effort and furthers creative collaboration between the many
organizations involved in countering the threats from narcotics
trafficking, human smuggling/trafficking, immigration crimes, and
global terrorism.'' Furthermore, based on available intelligence, there
is clear evidence that drug profits are being used to facilitate acts
of terrorism and violence. These acts undermine democratic governance
and respect for the rule of law, as well as destabilize regional
security in countries such as Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela,
and the tri-border area.
The DEA and the IC have a long history of collaborating for
purposes of identifying and disrupting illegal drug trafficking. The
Counterterrorism and Intelligence Sharing Initiative would bolster
those collaborations, allow DEA to enhance its classified information
technology (IT) infrastructure, provide start-up funding and positions
for studying and analyzing emerging as well as established coca and
opium poppy growing regions, and provide resources for DEA to continue
its participation in Justice's anti-gang activities.
Some specifics.--$6 million would ensure that DEA's classified IT
backbone, MERLIN, would be upgraded in every DEA office every four
years. Regularly scheduled upgrades would make certain that DEA's IC
component has the secure communications infrastructure that is critical
to communicating classified IC requests to both domestic and foreign
DEA field offices. Presently, DEA is in a precarious situation as it
relates to the continued viability of MERLIN. In previous years,
requests for operations and maintenance enhancement funding have been
denied; with the result that much of our MERLIN equipment is five or
six years old and in danger of serious failure. If we are to meet our
IC commitments and exploit our intelligence capabilities against
transnational threats, DEA must have an infrastructure that makes that
possible. Six positions and $950,000 are requested to study regions of
the world where coca and poppy are grown to determine the amount of
finished cocaine and heroin that can be produced from a given quantity
of plant material. Finally, one position and $204,000 is requested so
DEA may assign one Special Agent to the Department's National Gang
Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center, which takes part in
and coordinates investigations and prosecutions, and develops
enforcement and prevention strategies to combat gang violence in this
country.
Online Investigations Initiative ($3 million)
Drug traffickers are increasingly turning to the Internet to widen
their reach and strengthen their criminal enterprises. State-of-the-art
Internet investigative technologies are an essential tool if DEA is to
attack the command and control communications of organizations,
particularly those that operate across jurisdictional boundaries at the
regional, national, and international levels. To achieve our
objectives, DEA must acquire tailored Internet intercept solutions,
arrange for permanent Internet connectivity between DEA's field
divisions and the major Internet Service Providers, and purchase needed
hardware for computer forensics purposes. With these purchases, DEA
could greatly improve the quality, effectiveness, and timeliness of our
investigations of these traffickers.
Some specifics.--$1 million would be used to develop intercept
solutions to counter traffickers who use Yahoo, Hotmail and other
electronic mail accounts, as well as advanced Internet communications,
wireless handheld devices, instant messaging services, and encrypted
electronic mail. $1.5 million is requested to connect DEA field
divisions to major Internet Service Providers by means of a secure,
dedicated network. The total cost for these connections is $3 million,
half of which is requested under the Salaries and Expenses Account and
half would be covered by Diversion Control Fee Account to step up our
investigations of illegal online pharmacies. Finally, DEA is requesting
$520,000 to purchase computer hardware that is designed to aid forensic
professionals with recovering and examining data more quickly and from
numerous electronic devices.
Diversion and Control Fee Account (DCFA)
DEA's fiscal year 2008 request includes $239 million under the
DCFA, a $27.1 million increase over fiscal year 2007.
Prescription drugs are diverted for abuse through doctors,
pharmacies, thefts and robberies from manufacturers and distributors,
and illegal Internet distributors. Throughout the United States, the
non-medical use of prescription drugs continues at alarming rates. The
2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, released in September 2006
by SAMHSA, reports that an estimated 6.4 million Americans abuse
prescription drugs, compared to 3.8 million in 2000--a 68 percent
increase over five years. Furthermore, they are the second most abused
type of drugs--behind only marijuana. Particularly troubling is the
data showing that nearly one out of every ten high school seniors
abuses dangerous painkillers. Fueling this increase is the
proliferation of illicit websites that make it possible, with one
simple click, to purchase controlled substances. Furthermore, buying a
medicinal product through an illegal Internet pharmacy exposes
individuals who make these purchases to serious health risks.
DEA is actively pursuing those who divert pharmaceutical controlled
substances. On the Internet and non-Internet sides combined, DEA
initiated 1,840 criminal, complaint, and regulatory pharmaceutical
investigations in fiscal year 2006. 857 of those investigations
targeted Schedule III-V pharmaceutical controlled substances, and 237
investigations targeted Schedule II pharmaceuticals. Between fiscal
year 2004 and fiscal year 2006, DEA seized $55 million in cash, bank
accounts, property, and computers in the course of its investigations,
compared to $2.5 million in fiscal year 2003. While we are pleased with
our progress, it is imperative that DEA enhance its enforcement work in
an area that poses such an immediate public safety threat.
Some specifics of our DCFA request.--DEA is requesting $766,000 and
seven positions to provide much-needed investigative support for our
computer forensics teams. We estimate that online diversion cases will
increase the workload of DEA attorneys assigned to these cases by 75
percent for the foreseeable future, and to prepare for this, DEA
requests $495,000 and five attorney positions. DEA is requesting
$337,000 and two positions (one Special Agent and one Diversion
Investigator) to work with the Customs and Border Patrol in Long Beach,
California to identify shipments of precursor chemicals from source
countries that are destined for Mexico. Additionally, we are requesting
$474,000 and one position (Foreign Diversion Investigator) to support
existing DEA investigations in Panama City, Panama involving the
smuggling of precursors moving through Panama. Finally, DEA has
proposed that a new hybrid job series be established which contains the
specialized diversion investigator requirements as well as full law
enforcement authorities. The proposal, with an associated cost of $11.5
million, is now under review by the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM). Current employees who are interested and eligible may apply.
Those who do not apply will continue to perform compliance functions.
Through attrition, we will arrive at the appropriate number of
diversion investigators to sustain the compliance function. With OPM
approval of the proposal, DEA will begin the conversion in fiscal year
2007.
Program Offsets
Included in the President's budget is one funding offset proposal:
the elimination of the MET program (Mobile Enforcement Teams). This
offset would achieve savings of $20.6 million in fiscal year 2008.
Over the years, DEA has valued each and every opportunity to
support state and local law enforcement organizations as they combat
drug-related violent crimes in our nation's cities and towns.
Furthermore, as many of you know from experience in your own
communities, our partnerships have yielded positive, and I hope,
lasting results. At the same time, greater overall results are achieved
when our focus is on targeting the drug trafficking organizations whose
activities have the most significant impact on the drug problem in the
United States as a whole.
While DEA's field divisions will no longer deploy MET teams to
local jurisdictions when we receive a deployment request, we will
continue to provide law enforcement assistance to them whenever
possible, including our vigorous training programs for state and local
law enforcement officers. In fiscal year 2006, DEA trained more than
41,000 officers. Also, during fiscal year 2006, DEA led over 200 State
and Local Task Forces, with an on board strength of 1,600 Special
Agents and 2,100 Task Force Officers.
conclusion
In closing, let me reiterate that DEA works very hard to manage its
resources and finances wisely and efficiently. Nevertheless, as our
base budget has gradually eroded over time due to pay raise
absorptions, rescissions and program reductions, we have been unable to
maintain adequately our infrastructure or agent and support staffing at
their previous levels. This has put us at an enforcement disadvantage.
We must regain our financial footing. We must have the ability to
sharpen and expand the enforcement tools and techniques that have
helped us establish our drug enforcement leadership role. The budget
before you today sets us on the path to regain that footing.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee let me assure you
that although we are experiencing fiscal challenges, we at DEA never
waver in our firm commitment to public service and public safety.
This concludes my remarks. I would now be happy to answer any
questions you or the other Members of the Committee may have.
attachment--drug threats and enforcement challenges--april 2007
drug threats to the united states
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine is the most widely abused and most frequently
clandestinely produced synthetic drug \1\ in the United States.
Methamphetamine appeals to people across all genders, ages, and socio-
economic levels. Methamphetamine has a high rate of addiction, a low
rate of sustained recovery, and is cheap to manufacture. It devastates
users, their families, and local communities. According to the 2005
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 512,000 persons 12 and
older used methamphetamine during the past 30 days (an eighteen percent
decrease from 2003) and 1.3 million have used it in the past year,
virtually the same number as in 2003. The estimated number of past year
methamphetamine users is nearly three and one-half times the number of
estimated past year heroin users. In fiscal year 2006, DEA domestic
seizures of methamphetamine totaled 2.1 metric tons. Super lab seizures
in the United States were reduced by 86 percent through increased
enforcement efforts, from 244 in calendar year (CY) 2001 to 35 in CY
2005. The total number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories
seized nationally also decreased, from 10,212 in CY 2003 (the highest
total from 2001 to 2005) to 5,840 in CY 2005 (43 percent). Of the 2,134
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories seized nationally so far in CY
2006, only 17 are classified as ``super labs.'' Seizures of
methamphetamine along the Southwest Border of the United States and
Mexico have increased 129 percent, from 1,170 kilograms in CY 2001 to
2,679 kilograms in CY 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``synthetic drugs'' refers to controlled substances
such as methamphetamine, MDMA ``ecstasy'' (and its analogues), GHB (and
its analogues), ketamine, and other substances, which are not of
primarily organic origin and are usually associated with clandestine
manufacture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By effectively targeting and arresting the main suppliers of bulk
precursor chemicals, DEA has successfully reduced the number of super
labs \2\ in the United States. As a consequence, operators of super
labs have shifted their production to Mexico. Current drug and lab
seizure data suggests that approximately 80 percent of the
methamphetamine used in the United States originates from larger
laboratories operated by Mexican-based syndicates on both sides of the
border, and that approximately 20 percent of the methamphetamine
consumed comes from small toxic labs (STLs) in the United States. STLs
generally are unaffiliated with major drug trafficking organizations,
but nevertheless present enormous environmental challenges. In recent
years, the proliferation of STLs has been fueled by the ready
availability of pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient in methamphetamine
and by the fact that the manufacturing process is simple, inexpensive,
and recipes can be found easily on the Internet. Super lab seizures in
the United States declined by 86 percent through increased enforcement
efforts, from 244 in calendar year (CY) 2001 to 35 in CY 2005. The
total number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories seized
nationally also decreased, from 10,212 in CY 2003 (the highest total
from 2001 to 2005) to 5,840 in CY 2005 (43 percent). Of the 2,134
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories seized nationally so far in CY
2006, only 17 are classified as ``super labs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Super labs'' are those labs that are capable of producing at
least 10 pounds of methamphetamine per cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most promising means of eliminating STLs is to cut off their
supply of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. DEA has removed a number of
distributors of grey market drug products (those that can be purchased
at truck stops, party/liquor stores, etc.) from the marketplace.
Following DEA's success with removing grey market distributors, STLs
have become heavily reliant on obtaining precursor chemicals from cold
and asthma drug products (usually packaged in blister packs) from
traditional retail outlets, such as chain drug stores. Based on
clandestine lab seizure statistics, those states restricting the
availability of methamphetamine precursor chemicals, like
pseudoephedrine, have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of STLs.
Implementing the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 will
further help reduce the number of STLs as it makes pseudoephedrine and
ephedrine more difficult to obtain.
DEA Operational Highlight--August 2006.--DEA arrested 28 members of
two separate cocaine trafficking organizations which were
simultaneously distributing methamphetamine in Henderson and Caldwell
Counties, North Carolina. The arrests concluded ten-month and 15-month
Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigations
that resulted in the dismantlement of the Juan LOPEZ and the Lewis
CASAS methamphetamine trafficking organizations. The two organizations
were responsible for the distribution of five kilograms of
methamphetamine per month in the western part of North Carolina. To
date, these two OCDETF investigations have resulted in 47 arrests,
including LOPEZ and CASAS, 37 repeat offenders, and the seizure of more
than one kilogram of methamphetamine, approximately $50,000 U.S.
currency, and six weapons.
DEA Operational Highlight--May 2006.--DEA and the FBI arrested 27
individuals, resulting in the dismantlement of two crystal
methamphetamine trafficking organizations. During the past ten years,
the Rafael RAMIREZ organization was responsible for the distribution of
approximately 100 pounds of crystal methamphetamine on a monthly basis
from Mexico to the San Francisco area. The RAMIREZ organization
supplied methamphetamine to the Kasi POHAHAU organization which, during
the past ten years, was responsible for the distribution of more than
50 pounds of crystal methamphetamine from San Francisco to Hawaii. This
three-year OCDETF investigation has resulted in the arrest of 37
individuals, including RAMIREZ and POHAHAU, and the seizure of 42
pounds of crystal methamphetamine, 52 kilograms of cocaine, and $1.4
million in U.S. currency.
Non-medical use of prescription drugs
Non-medical use of addictive prescription drugs has been increasing
throughout the United States at alarming rates. In CY 2005, an
estimated 6.4 million \3\ Americans age 12 and older reported past
month use of prescription drugs for non-medical purposes compared to
3.8 million in CY 2000 \4\--a 68 percent increase in 5 years.
Nationally, the misuse of prescription drugs was second only to
marijuana in CY 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006). Results from the
2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
\4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002). National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse: Vol 1. Summary of National Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual users can easily acquire prescription drugs through a
variety of means, generally dependent on the type of drug. DEA and
other data sources reveal that OxyContin and other Schedule II drugs
are most commonly obtained illegally through ``doctor shopping'' or are
sold illegally by registrants (e.g., doctors/pharmacists). On the other
hand, Schedule III and Schedule IV drugs (e.g., anti-anxiety
medications, hydrocodone, and anabolic steroids) are often purchased
through the Internet. Many of these pharmacies are foreign-based and
expose the purchaser to potentially counterfeit, contaminated, or
adulterated products.
DEA targets its investigations on domestic Internet pharmacies
using data from available data bases, such as the Automated Reporting
of Completed Orders System (ARCOS), to determine which retail
pharmacies are most likely involved in distribution of large quantities
of controlled substances over the Internet. In fiscal year 2006, 14.7
percent of investigative work hours dedicated to open diversion cases
were Internet cases. This is an increase of 27.9 percent from fiscal
year 2005 when Internet cases represented 11.3 percent of the
investigative work hours dedicated to open diversion cases, and an
increase of 50 percent from fiscal year 2004 when 8.8 percent of case
work hours were for Internet cases.
During fiscal year 2006, DEA has initiated over 218 investigations
of online sales of controlled pharmaceuticals without a prescription.
As a result of Internet investigations, DEA seized approximately $4.9
million in cash, bank accounts, property, and computers during fiscal
year 2006.
In fiscal year 2004, DEA established a specialized section within
its Special Operations Division (SOD) to coordinate multi-
jurisdictional Title III investigations involving the diversion of
pharmaceuticals and chemicals over the Internet. During fiscal year
2006, DEA has coordinated over 90 Internet investigations, resulting in
the arrest of approximately 128 individuals and the seizure of
approximately 14 million dosage units of controlled substances and
approximately $52.6 million in U.S. currency.
In 2006, DEA continued to enhance the Online Investigations Project
(OIP), which improves DEA's ability to systematically identify,
investigate, and prosecute the owners and operators of rogue pharmacies
using the Internet to divert controlled substances. During fiscal year
2006, the OIP Configuration Control Board authorized the release of 71
change request items. These improvements made significant changes to
the functionality of the OIP system, which enabled Diversion Staff
Coordinators assigned to Intelligence to provide effective, ongoing
support of significant Internet investigations. The system has also
been utilized to provide pertinent Internet data in furtherance of
ongoing Internet investigations in the field, as well as to provide new
tips and leads. Since the inception of the OIP Web-Check process in
March 2005, Web-Checks were performed on 2,425 web sites and e-mail
addresses as a result of 455 requests.
DEA Operational Highlight--January 2007.--DEA arrested four
individuals, resulting in the dismantlement of the Andrew RUSSO
internet pharmaceutical drug trafficking organization. The RUSSO
organization used illicit internet websites to sell controlled
substances directly to consumers without a physician's medical
evaluation. From July to December 2005, the RUSSO organization
distributed over one million tablets of alprazolam, and six million
tablets of phentermine through its two internet pharmacies, United Care
Pharmacy and Kwic-Fill. In addition to the arrests, this 20-month
Priority Target Organization (PTO) investigation has resulted in the
seizure of $2,000,415 in U.S. currency, 11 vehicles valued at $700,000,
and the possible forfeiture of real estate valued at $1.5 million.
DEA Operational Highlight--December 2006.--DEA arrested seven
individuals, resulting in the dismantlement of the Antonio QUINONES
internet pharmaceutical drug trafficking organization. The QUINONES
organization used illicit internet websites to sell controlled
substances directly to consumers without a physician's medical
evaluation. During the past two years, the QUINONES organization
shipped more than one million dosage units of Vicodin and amphetamines
per month from Miami, Florida, to locations throughout the United
States. In addition to the arrests, this one-year OCDETF investigation
has resulted in the seizure of $935,000 in U.S. currency, real estate
valued at $4.2 million, two vehicles valued at $350,000, a watercraft
valued at $650,000, and two firearms. The DEA conducted this
investigation with the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Marshals
Service.
Cocaine
Cocaine remains a major illegal drug of concern throughout the
United States based upon abuse indicators, violence associated with the
trade, and trafficking volume. After marijuana, cocaine continues to be
the most widely used illicit drug among all age categories. The 2005
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) found that 2.4 million
Americans used cocaine within the past 30 days and that over 5.5
million Americans used it within the past year. According to the 2004
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) report, cocaine is the most
frequently reported illegal drug in hospital emergency room visits,
accounting for 1 in 5 (19 percent) drug related emergency room visits
in CY 2004.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
Department Tables from DAWN: 2004. April 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Colombia is the principal source of cocaine distributed in
the United States, most of the wholesale cocaine distribution in the
United States is controlled by Mexican drug trafficking organizations
and criminal enterprises. Even in areas dominated by Colombian and
Dominican drug trafficking organizations, such as the Northeast and
Caribbean regions, the influence of Mexican drug trafficking
organizations is increasing.
DEA Operational Highlight--September 2006.--Consolidated Priority
Organization Targets (CPOTs) Miguel and Gilberto RODRIGUEZ-OREJUELA
pled guilty in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
to conspiracy to import cocaine, and agreed to plead guilty in the
Southern District of New York to conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Each brother was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The brothers also
agreed to the entry of a $2.1 billion judgment of forfeiture, and the
forfeiture of 287 properties. Twenty-eight family members have also
agreed to these forfeitures. The RODRIGUEZ-OREJUELA brothers ran the
Cali Cartel in Colombia, and since 1990 imported and distributed more
than 200,000 kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to the United States.
DEA Operational Highlight--May 2006.--The Brazilian Federal Police
arrested CPOT Pablo RAYO Montano in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and in an
operation coordinated by DEA, law enforcement teams in four U.S. cities
and five foreign countries arrested 52 individuals, resulting in the
dismantlement of the RAYO Montano cocaine trafficking organization.
RAYO Montano started in the narcotics business as a transporter in
Buenaventura, Colombia approximately 20 years ago. In the last four
years alone, the RAYO Montano organization has been responsible for the
transportation of 15 tons of cocaine per month from South America to
the United States and Europe. RAYO Montano has been linked to the
notorious Norte del Valle Cartel, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia
(AUC) paramilitary organization, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia (FARC) terrorist organization, and corrupt high-level
officials in the Colombian government. On February 22 and March 3,
2006, federal grand juries in the District of Columbia and the Southern
District of Florida, respectively, indicted RAYO Montano on money
laundering and cocaine trafficking charges. The indictments were the
result of Operation Twin Oceans, a three-year OCDETF investigation
supported by the DEA Special Operations Division. Operation Twin Oceans
has resulted in 138 arrests and the seizure of 47,550 kilograms of
cocaine, 700 pounds of marijuana, ten kilograms of heroin, $1.6 million
in U.S. currency, and other assets with a total estimated value of $47
million, including three islands near the coast of Panama.
Heroin
The overall demand for heroin in the United States is lower than
for other major drugs of abuse such as cocaine, marijuana, and
methamphetamine.\6\ However, one cause for concern is the recent
increase in heroin usage. According to the 2005 NSDUH, 379,000 people
aged 12 and older reported using heroin during the past 30 days in CY
2005; a slight decrease from 398,000 in CY 2004.\7\ Heroin remains
readily available in major metropolitan areas and is the third most
frequently mentioned illegal drug reported to DAWN by participating
emergency departments after cocaine and marijuana, accounting for
162,137 mentions in CY 2004.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006). Results from the
2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
\7\ Ibid.
\8\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
Department Tables from DAWN: 2004. April 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the heroin entering the United States is produced in South
America and Mexico. Although heroin production in these areas has
decreased in recent years, the production capacity remains sufficient
to meet U.S. demand for the drug.\9\ In 2004, Afghanistan produced more
than 90 percent of the world's heroin supply.\10\ However, Afghanistan
is not currently a major heroin supplier to the United States; only
about eight percent of the U.S. supply comes from that country. The
majority of the heroin entering the United States is produced in
Colombia and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.
(2006). 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment.
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA Operational Highlight--November 2006.--DEA arrested seven
individuals, resulting in the dismantlement of the Shakur MUHAMMAD
heroin trafficking organization. This organization distributed
fentanyl-laced heroin, brand named ``Get High or Die Trying'' and
``Burn Out,'' which was directly responsible for six deaths and 27
overdoses. During the past two years, the MUHAMMAD organization
distributed over three kilograms of heroin per month in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania area. This six-month OCDETF investigation has resulted in
the arrest of nine individuals, including MUHAMMAD, and the seizure of
one kilogram of heroin and two firearms.
DEA Operational Highlight--June 2006.--DEA arrested 12 individuals
in Las Vegas, Nevada, Palm Springs, California, Caguas, Puerto Rico,
and New York City, resulting in the dismantlement of the Javier MONROY
heroin trafficking organization. Since 2004, the MONROY organization
has been responsible for importing more than 200 kilograms of heroin
into the United States. MONROY is a former Bogota, Colombia police
officer. The MONROY organization used couriers to smuggle heroin from
several foreign countries, including Ecuador, Venezuela, Trinidad and
Tobago, Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, to New York for distribution. The
organization employed more than a dozen drug couriers, many of whom
made multiple drug trips and most of whom were based in the Las Vegas
area. Typically, the drug couriers smuggled between three to five
kilograms of heroin per trip concealed within the lining of clothes. To
date, this ten-month OCDETF investigation has resulted in the arrest of
22 individuals, including MONROY, and the seizure of 28 kilograms of
heroin and $220,000 in U.S. currency.
Marijuana
Marijuana continues to be a significant threat. The 2005 NSDUH
found that marijuana was the most commonly used illicit drug with 14.6
million users (6.1 percent of the population 12 and older) during the
past month in CY 2004--the same as in CY 2003.\11\ More teens seek
treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined
including alcohol, and marijuana was involved in 215,665 emergency
department visits \12\ in CY 2004, second only to cocaine among drug-
related visits.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006). Results from the
2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
\12\ A visit to the emergency room is referred to as an episode,
and every time a drug is involved in an episode it is counted as a
mention.
\13\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
Department Tables from DAWN: 2004. April 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana trafficking is prevalent across the nation, with both
domestic and foreign sources of supply. The most recent supply
availability estimates indicate that between 10,000 and 24,000 pure
metric tons of marijuana are available in the United States,\14\ and
that Americans spend more than $10.4 billion every year on
marijuana.\15\ Since the demand for marijuana far exceeds that for any
other illegal drug and the profit potential is so high, some cocaine
and heroin drug trafficking organizations traffic marijuana to help
finance their other drug operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Drug Availability Steering Committee, Drug Availability
Estimates in the United States, December 2002.
\15\ Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug
Control Policy. What Americans Spend on Illegal Drugs 1988-1998.
December 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican drug trafficking organizations dominate the transportation
and wholesale distribution of the majority of foreign-based marijuana
available in the United States and cultivate marijuana on U.S. public
lands throughout California. High grade marijuana from Canada, commonly
referred to as ``BC Bud,'' is also available in every region of the
United States.
DEA Operational Highlight--December 2006.--DEA arrested two
individuals, resulting in the dismantlement of the Shon SQUIRE
marijuana trafficking organization. During the past 18 months, the
SQUIRE organization distributed 300 pounds of marijuana per month
through its store, the Local Patient Cooperative, which was granted a
permit to operate as a medical dispensary by the city of Hayward,
California. The store serviced 200 customers per day, purchasing
marijuana at $4,000 per pound and selling it at $6,500 per pound, in
various products and quantities, for a gross profit of $750,000 per
month. In addition to the arrests, this one-year investigation resulted
in the seizure of 725 marijuana plants, $2 million in U.S. currency,
five luxury vehicles and five firearms.
DEA Operational Highlight--September 2006.--DEA arrested 30
individuals, resulting in the dismantlement of the Manuel CARO
marijuana trafficking organization. During the past 18 months, the CARO
organization distributed 1,000 pounds of marijuana per month in
Florida, New Jersey and New York. To date, this six-month OCDETF
investigation has resulted in the arrest of 60 individuals, including
CARO, and the seizure of 4,000 pounds of marijuana, $170,000 in U.S.
currency, and a large amount of sophisticated indoor hydroponic grow
equipment. Additionally, sixty residential properties are being
reviewed for possible forfeiture action.
Enforcement Challenges
Transit Zones
The Southwest Border area is the principal arrival zone for most
illicit drugs smuggled into the United States. From that area, the
smuggled drugs are distributed throughout the country.
Most cocaine is transported from South America, particularly
Colombia, through the Mexico-Central America Corridor via the Eastern
Pacific transit zone (50 percent) and the Western Caribbean zone (40
percent). Most of the cocaine transiting these two areas is ultimately
smuggled into the country via the Southwest Border. The remaining 10
percent of cocaine transported from South America mostly transits the
Caribbean zones to Florida and the Gulf Coast.
According to the 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment,
methamphetamine seizures increased from 1.12 metric tons in CY 2002, to
1.73 metric tons in CY 2003, to 1.98 metric tons in CY 2004. Most of
the foreign-produced marijuana available in the United States is
smuggled into the country from Mexico via the Southwest Border by
Mexican drug trafficking organizations and criminal groups, as
evidenced by CY 2004 seizures of 1,103 metric tons on the Southwest
Border versus 9.2 metric tons on the Northern Border.
In CY 2004, seizures for Southwest Border points of entry included
22.4 metric tons of cocaine, 388 kilograms of heroin, 1,070 metric tons
of marijuana, and 2.3 metric tons of methamphetamine. By comparison,
seizures in the Florida/Caribbean arrival zone for the same time period
included 10.5 metric tons of cocaine, 481 kilograms of heroin, 4.9
metric tons of marijuana and no methamphetamine.
DEA Operational Highlight--August 2005 through October 2005.--DEA
oversaw Operation All Inclusive (OAI) 2005-1, the first initiative
under the DEA-developed, multi-agency International Drug Flow
Prevention Strategy. This strategy is designed to cause major
disruption to the flow of drugs, money, and chemicals between source
zones and the United States through the execution of joint enforcement
operations that attack the main arteries and support infrastructure
nodes of the drug trade. OAI 2005-1 focused on a predictive
intelligence-based attack of the maritime, land, financial, and air
smuggling vulnerabilities of drug trafficking organizations operating
within the Mexico/Central America corridor. OAI 2005-1's success
included nearly 47 metric tons of cocaine seized, which equates to 5 to
10 percent of the estimated quantity of cocaine that was transported
through the transit zones to the United States during all of 2005.
Additionally, during the 65-day period of the operation, total cocaine
seizures in the Mexico/Central American and Caribbean Corridors
increased 119 percent compared to the 65-day period preceding the
operation, from 36 metric tons to 79 metric tons. At the same time,
cocaine seizures by DEA domestic offices decreased 29 percent compared
to the 65-day period prior to the operation, from 31,789 kilograms to
22,669 kilograms. Further, as a result of the operation, drug
trafficking organizations were forced to delay or suspend their drug
operations, divert their routes, change their modes of transportation,
and jettison loads. Other results include 346 arrests and additional
seizures of 88.56 kilograms of heroin, 26.28 metric tons of marijuana,
990,200 tablets of pseudoephedrine, $16 million in currency, and 104
weapons.
DEA Operational Highlight--March 2006 through April 2006.--Building
upon some of the lessons learned from OAI 2005-1, the second initiative
under the highly effective International Drug Flow Prevention Strategy,
OAI 2006-1, was conducted. OAI 2006-1 was comprised of a combination of
staggered and simultaneous land, air, maritime, and financial attacks
involving synchronized interagency counter drug operations designed to
influence illicit trafficking patterns and increase disruptions of drug
trafficking organizations. Some of the successes for OAI 2006-1 include
over 130 arrests and the seizure of 43.77 metric tons of cocaine; 19.65
metric tons of marijuana; 83.6 kilograms of heroin; 92.6 metric tons of
precursor chemicals; and $4,079,894 U.S. currency. During the course of
both OAI initiatives, DEA was able to determine through intelligence
sources that traffickers postponed or canceled their operations,
modified their methods of conveyance, varied smuggling routes, and
jettisoned loads as a result of enforcement efforts.
Gangs
Gangs have become an increasing and pervasive threat to our
nation's security and the safety of our communities. Seventy-five
percent of the United States Attorneys report that parts of their
districts currently have a moderate or significant gang problem. Gangs
commonly use drug trafficking as a means to finance their criminal
activities. Furthermore, many have evolved from turf-oriented entities
to profit-driven, organized criminal enterprises whose activities
include not only retail drug distribution but also other aspects of the
trade, including smuggling, transportation and wholesale distribution.
Criminal street gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs
are the primary retail distributors of illegal drugs on the streets of
the United States and the threat of these gangs is magnified by the
high level of violence associated with their attempts to control and
expand drug distribution operations. Gangs primarily transport and
distribute cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Authorities
throughout the country report that gangs are responsible for most of
the serious violent crime in the major cities of the United States.
DEA is committed to combating the gang problem within the United
States. The agency targets gang drug trafficking activity through
participation in a number of anti-gang initiatives with other law
enforcement components, such as Violent Crime Impact Teams, Project
Safe Neighborhoods, Weed and Seed Program, Safe Streets and Safe Trails
Task Forces and the Attorney General's Anti-Gang Coordination
Committee. In 2006, DEA targeted violent drug gangs, such as the Hell's
Angels, Latin Kings, Bloods, Gangster Disciples, and Crips. Through
state and local partnerships, DEA is able to target violent drug
trafficking organizations in areas where state, local, and tribal law
enforcement is challenged. In fiscal year 2006, DEA initiated 31
deployments to state and local jurisdictions. Of these, nine (29
percent) were gang related. Additionally, 6 percent (117) of DEA's
total active PTO investigations (2,113) were gang-involved. There was a
36 percent increase in active PTO cases involving gangs (from 86 in
fiscal year 2005 to 117 in fiscal year 2006); 57 percent increase in
cases initiated (from 56 in fiscal year 2005 to 88 in fiscal year
2006); 120 percent increase in PTOs disrupted (from 10 in fiscal year
2005 to 22 in fiscal year 2006); and 57 percent increase in PTOs
dismantled (from 23 in fiscal year 2005 to 36 in fiscal year 2006).
DEA Operational Highlight--February 2007.--DEA arrested 47
individuals, resulting in the disruption of the Laton Spurgeon crack
cocaine and heroin trafficking organization. Since August 2005, the
Spurgeon organization distributed one kilogram of crack cocaine and six
ounces of heroin per month at the Hamel Housing Projects, a New York
City Housing Authority complex in Queens, New York. Sixteen of the
defendants were charged with at least one count of selling drugs within
a drug-free school zone. In addition to the arrests, this four-month
PTO investigation resulted in the seizure of two firearms.
DEA Operational Highlight--May 2006.--DEA arrested 23 individuals,
resulting in the dismantlement of the Winfred Lorenzo HUNT and Carlton
POTTS crack cocaine trafficking organization. During the past three
years, the HUNT/POTTS organization was responsible for the distribution
of 8-12 kilograms of cocaine per month in Palm Beach County, Florida.
HUNT has been arrested 27 times previously and charged with several
violent crimes, including attempted murder. POTTS' record includes 30
prior arrests on charges such as battery on a police officer,
aggravated assault, and attempted murder. Among those arrested was an
employee of the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office who utilized her
position to provide law enforcement information to the HUNT/POTTS
organization. To date, this 15-month OCDETF investigation has resulted
in the arrest of 53 individuals, including HUNT and POTTS, and the
seizure of more than one kilogram of crack cocaine and two kilograms of
powder cocaine, $172,000 in U.S. currency, and eight handguns.
United States Marshals Service
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR
Mr. Clark. Thank you Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Shelby,
and members of the subcommittee. As a career deputy U.S.
marshal, I consider it a privilege and an honor to serve as the
ninth Director of America's oldest law enforcement agency.
We appreciate your support of the Marshals Service and our
programs and, thanks to the funding you have provided over the
years together with the work of the dedicated men and women of
the Marshals Service, we have made a significant impact on
reducing violent crime, protecting the judiciary, and securing
thousands of prisoners who are in our custody.
Our fiscal year 2008 budget request addresses the Marshals
Services' highest priority needs. In total, we are requesting
140 additional positions and just over $25 million. These
resources will be used to maintain the security of our judicial
system, to handle the increased court and prisoner workload in
the Southwest border region, and to make our streets safer for
children.
Protection of the judicial process remains the primary
mission of the United States Marshals Service and deputy
marshals protect over 2,000 Federal judges, over 5,000 U.S. and
assistant U.S. attorneys, and many Federal employees who work
within our courthouses. Last year, the Marshals Service safely
handled over 200 personal protection details for Federal judges
and Supreme Court justices and investigated more than 1,100
judicial threats.
However, in recent times, we have seen very violent acts
committed against the judiciary, some resulting in death. Just
last month a suspect pled guilty to mailing an actual explosive
device to the courthouse in Richmond, Virginia. It was court
security officers who discovered and dealt with both the
explosive device and its contents, a powdery substance labeled
as anthrax.
Also last month, a Houston man began making numerous
telephone calls to the chambers of a Federal judge. The man
would not accept that his case had been dismissed and became
angry and threatening toward the judge. After fully
investigating the situation, deputy U.S. marshals and local
police determined the man was a danger to himself and others.
He was brought before a magistrate judge and, through
psychiatric evaluation, was ordered help.
In the last 10 years, the number of reported threats has
increased 553 percent. To strengthen our ability to analyze and
investigate threats against the judiciary and to adequately
provide judicial and courtroom security, we're requesting 16
positions and $5.3 million. The Marshals Service must maintain
a secure courtroom environment especially when trials involve
high profile and high threat defendants.
Right now, there are 20 high threat trials going on in
courtrooms throughout the country, involving defendants such as
the Aryan Brotherhood, the Russian mafia, and the MS-13 gang.
Last year, the Marshals Service provided security for over 130
high threat trials. In order to continue to provide security at
the increased number of high threat trials, the Marshals
Service requests 17 positions and $5.1 million.
Every day, our Southwest border districts try to determine
how to best use our limited number of deputy marshals to
successfully protect the Federal judiciary and safely transport
the detainees. The average daily prisoner population at
districts along the Southwest border has increased 78 percent
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2006. To address this
prisoner increase, the Marshals Service requests 53 positions
and $7.5 million for our Southwest border district offices.
The Marshals Service workload has also increased due to our
newest enforcement mission. Last July, the President signed
into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act which
places the Marshals Service as the lead Federal law enforcement
agency responsible for investigating sex offender registration
violations. There are more than 500,000 registered sex
offenders in the United States and estimates indicate that
there are at least 100,000 unregistered or noncompliant sex
offenders.
We are requesting 54 positions and $7.8 million to more
aggressively investigate violations of the Adam Walsh Act. With
the requested resources, we'll also be able to partner with the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at their
national sex offender targeting center.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chairman, Senator Shelby, and members of the
subcommittee, I look forward to working with your subcommittee
throughout the appropriation process and on behalf of the men
and women of the United States Marshals Service, I thank you
for your ongoing support and I'd be happy to answer any
questions you have now. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Clark
Madam Chairman, Senator Shelby, and Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the United States
Marshals Service (USMS). As a career Deputy U.S. Marshal, and the
former United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia, it
is a very great honor to represent the Marshals Service as its
Director.
I appreciate this Subcommittee's support for the Marshals Service
and our programs. Thanks to the funding that you have provided over the
years, and with the good work of the dedicated men and women who wear
``America's Star,'' we are performing our missions with excellent
results.
the mission of the united states marshals service
As you know, the primary mission of the Marshals Service is the
protection of the federal judicial process. The nation relies on us to
provide physical security to federal judges and U.S. courthouses; to
protect witnesses, jurors, and members of the public; to safely and
humanely transport and detain federal prisoners; and to catch violent
fugitives. Our missions are diverse, and the challenges we face are
significant. Our accomplishments are many, and I welcome the
opportunity to share some of those accomplishments with you today.
summary of fiscal year 2006 accomplishments
In fiscal year 2006, the Marshals Service:
--Investigated more than 1,100 threats and inappropriate
communications to the federal judiciary and others for whom the
USMS has protective responsibility;
--Provided more than 230 Personal Protection Details for federal
judges and prosecutors under threat, as well as security for
nearly 200 federal judicial conferences around the country, all
without incident;
--Completed home intrusion alarm surveys and pre-installation plans
for more than 1,600 federal judges who requested an alarm
system, with more than 90 percent of those installations now
complete;
--Cleared more than 39,000 federal felony fugitive cases and more
than 55,000 state and local fugitive cases;
--Established and began operating our sixth Regional Fugitive Task
Force (RFTF), located in the Gulf Coast states of Alabama and
Mississippi; since its inception in July 2006, the Gulf Coast
RFTF has made more than 2,140 arrests;
--Conducted two successful Fugitive Safe Surrender operations,
resulting in the surrender of more than 2,150 individuals
wanted on outstanding warrants;
--Established the Sex Offender Apprehension Program and Sex Offender
Investigations Branch to manage the implementation of the Adam
Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and support the Attorney
General's ``Project Safe Childhood'' initiative;
--Completed 685 international extraditions from a record 67 foreign
countries;
--Safely handled security operations for 135 high-threat trials
nationwide, including the trial of convicted terrorist Zacarias
Moussaoui;
--Received more than 263,000 prisoners into our custody, with a daily
average prisoner population of nearly 56,000;
--Safely and securely produced an average of 3,000 prisoners every
day for court appearances;
--Moved an average of 1,200 prisoners each day through the Justice
Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS);
--Protected more than 17,000 witnesses and their families through the
Witness Security Program;
--Hosted the first International Witness Security Symposium, with 17
countries participating;
--Assigned Special Operations Group (SOG) Deputies to Iraq to secure
the Saddam Hussein trial, assist in other high-threat trials,
and provide court security training;
--Deployed SOG Deputies to Kabul, Afghanistan, providing Judicial and
Witness Security training for the Counter-Narcotics Police of
Afghanistan, supporting the international effort to combat drug
trafficking, narcoterrorism, and related crimes;
--Managed more than $1.3 billion worth of seized assets through the
Asset Forfeiture Program;
--Disbursed more than $300 million worth of assets with state and
local law enforcement agencies through the USMS Equitable
Sharing program; and
--Received and disposed of more than 17,000 seized assets.
fiscal year 2008 budget request
For fiscal year 2008, the Marshals Service requests a total of
4,486 positions, including 3,299 Deputy Marshals, and $899.875 million
to fulfill its missions. Of this amount, 140 positions and $25.7
million are program enhancements to address critical needs related to
judicial threat intelligence and investigations; high-threat trial
security; enforcement of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act; and handling the increased workload in our Southwest Border
district offices.
judicial threat intelligence and investigations
Protection of the judicial process--with a heavy emphasis on
judicial security--remains the primary mission of the USMS.
Regrettably, the attitude of a small segment of American citizens
toward the judicial process has changed, as is evidenced by an
increasing number of threats to federal judges throughout the country.
As a result, the workload associated with both judicial and courthouse
security has significantly increased in the last six years. This is
due, in part, to the judicial families' heightened awareness of
potential threats, which has resulted in an increase in reporting of
such incidents to the USMS. We cannot forget what happened in March
2005, when the mother and husband of U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey
Lefkow were brutally murdered in retaliation for her rulings. The
tragic loss clearly illustrates why there is a real and continuing need
to monitor and enhance security for all involved in the judicial
process.
Just last month, a Houston man began making numerous telephone
calls to the chambers of a federal judge. The man would not accept that
his case had been dismissed, and became angry and threatening towards
the judge. After fully investigating the incident, Deputy U.S. Marshals
and local police determined that the man was a danger to himself and
others. He was brought before a magistrate judge on charges of
threatening the federal judge and a thorough psychiatric evaluation was
ordered.
Potential threats against judicial participants are not always
obvious. Because of this, Deputy Marshals must be constantly vigilant.
Threats come not only from detainees in custody, but also from
litigants in civil matters, members of the general public attending
trials, and individuals related to or associated with litigants or
trial participants. In the last ten years, the number of reported
threats has increased 553 percent. In fiscal year 2006, the number of
threat investigations undertaken by our Judicial Security Division
increased 17 percent over 2005. As a result, we are making adjustments
to our threat assessment capability to respond to this new reality.
To strengthen our ability to analyze and investigate threats
against the judiciary and to adequately provide judicial and courtroom
security, we are requesting 16 positions and $5.3 million. The
requested resources will allow the Marshals Service to hire 10
additional Deputy Marshals to serve as District Threat Investigators,
and five Deputy Marshals and one analyst to be assigned to the
Technical Operations Group (TOG) to support judicial security. The
requested funding also will allow for enhancements to our secure voice
and data communications abilities.
I am steadfast in my commitment to fulfill our primary mission:
protecting the federal judiciary. I am pleased to report the Marshals
Service has taken aggressive steps to further protect courthouses and
secure courtrooms in order to increase our threat intelligence and
analysis capabilities. In 2004, we established the Office of Protective
Intelligence (OPI) to facilitate the day-to-day sharing of threat
intelligence information with federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies. As a result of funds provided by Congress in the fiscal year
2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global
War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, we hired 10 new Deputy Marshals and
three intelligence research specialists to provide 24-hours-a-day/7-
days-a-week threat response capability and to analyze and investigate
all threats to the federal judiciary and others we protect. We
appreciate the continuing support the Subcommittee provides us in
fulfilling this crucial mission.
In fiscal year 2006, the Marshals Service investigated more than
1,100 judicial threats, staffed more than 230 Personal Protection
Details, and provided security for nearly 200 judicial conferences. The
year ended without a single violent incident.
Deputy Marshals protect more than 2,000 federal judges, but we also
protect Supreme Court Justices when they travel outside of the
Washington, DC area. Highly-publicized confirmation hearings and
controversial decisions have increased the visibility of these
justices, and staged protests at both private and public functions have
increased the demand for USMS protective details. We experienced an 80
percent increase in the number of Supreme Court Justice Protective
Details in fiscal year 2006 over the previous year. The Marshals
Service is in the final stages of constructing our Threat Management
Center, which will function as the nerve center for threats and
inappropriate communications against judicial officials and other
Marshals Service protectees. In addition, during fiscal year 2007, we
plan to establish the National Center for Judicial Security (NCJS). The
NCJS will provide a wide range of services and support to federal,
state, local, and international jurisdictions as they seek advice and
assistance on questions of judicial security. The Center will initiate
programs and activities directly related to threat assessment,
training, information sharing, and technology review.
Outside of the courtroom, the Marshals Service has made tremendous
progress in achieving the offsite security initiative funded through
the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. We are grateful
for the support provided by Congress. Through the end of 2006, 1,616
federal judges had requested or expressed interest in having a home
intrusion alarm system installed in their residence. Working in
conjunction with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC),
the Marshals Service has scheduled or completed Pre-Installation Plan
surveys for all of those residences. Installation has been completed in
over 90 percent of these locations. The ongoing cost of these systems
has been funded through the enacted fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution.
We have stepped up our training efforts. In fiscal year 2006, the
Marshals Service conducted training in behavioral methodologies of
investigation for 190 Deputy Marshals and Judicial Security Inspectors
(JSIs) at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) at
Glynco, Georgia. A Judicial Protective Training Conference for 210
Deputy Marshals and JSIs also was held in Baltimore, Maryland. These
training seminars were led by experts from within the Marshals Service,
as well as the United States Secret Service; the United States
Attorneys' Office; the Diplomatic Security Service; the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
I am pleased to say that we are also taking a more aggressive
approach to training Court Security Officers (CSOs) and exploring new
screening technologies that CSOs can use in their efforts to secure
federal courthouses. The CSO Orientation Curriculum has been completely
updated, and training which formerly occurred on an annual basis is now
being conducted quarterly at FLETC. Hands-on training is being
conducted on new and current screening equipment, with added emphasis
on detecting disguised weapons and explosives, and on response plans
for dealing with weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, selected
judicial districts are being asked to test next generation
technologies, and the data obtained from these tests will assist the
Marshals Service to select and procure the best possible screening
equipment to support our judicial protection mission.
high-threat trial security
The Marshals Service also has an obligation to ensure that the
highest level of security is provided at U.S. courthouses during trials
involving high-profile and high-threat defendants. High-threat trials
generally involve international or domestic terrorists, drug kingpins,
violent gang members, organized crime figures, or defendants in civil
matters with a high degree of notoriety. An increasing number of these
trials require enhanced security efforts to secure trial participants
from internal and external threats, such as additional personnel, use
of armored vehicles, and establishment of security perimeters around
courthouses.
Due to the potential for additional terrorist attacks, threats from
extremist groups, intense media attention, the general public's
concerns, and global interest in these proceedings, high-security,
high-profile events require extensive operational planning and support
from specially-trained and equipped personnel. The complexity of the
operations and threat levels associated with these cases require
additional Deputy Marshals for all aspects of USMS work. In order to
continue providing the best security for the number of high-threat
trials that we must handle, the Marshals Service requests 17 positions,
including 15 Deputy Marshals, and $5.1 million for cellblock security
enhancements, Supreme Court Protective Details, and our nationwide
security maintenance contract.
As the former U.S. Marshal in the Eastern District of Virginia, I
can speak firsthand about the planning and resource requirements
necessary to prepare for a high-threat trial. In fiscal year 2006, the
extended legal proceedings involving terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui came
to a close. The USMS provided security for this high-profile trial from
2002 to 2006. Assisted by our Special Operations Group, we were
successful in producing the defendant safely and securing the judicial
proceedings without incident. In May 2006, Moussaoui was sentenced to
life in prison, and on May 13, 2006, the Marshals Service transported
him to Florence, Colorado, to begin serving his sentence at the United
States Penitentiary Florence Administrative Maximum Facility.
While Moussaoui is perhaps the most visible terrorist to be tried
on U.S. soil, he will not be the last. The trial of terrorist suspect
Jose Padilla in Miami, Florida, is just another case that will test the
resources and resolve of the USMS. Preparations include evaluating
logistical requirements such as: increasing perimeter security, setting
up additional barricades, coordinating with local authorities to close
street traffic, arranging armored motorcades for prisoner transport,
upgrading surveillance cameras, and providing additional personnel
through several rotations of specially-trained Deputy Marshals.
The increase in gang-related trials also presents many challenges
for the Marshals Service. For example, in Santa Ana, California, we
have been securing the largest capital murder case in U.S. history.
Forty defendants affiliated with the Aryan Brotherhood have been
charged with a variety of violent crimes, including conspiracy to
commit murder and drug trafficking. Not only were the defendants part
of this gang, but so were many of the witnesses and trial observers in
the public area of the courtroom. In July 2006, the jury convicted two
Aryan Brotherhood leaders on a host of racketeering and murder charges.
Both leaders were sentenced to life in prison without parole. Although
federal prosecutors continue to achieve record convictions, out of the
40 defendants, 14 are still pending trial and remain in our custody.
Additional gang-related trials are currently taking place in
Greenbelt, Maryland, where several very significant prosecutions that
involve multi-defendant, high-threat trials of members of the notorious
MS-13 gang are underway. The defendants were charged with a variety of
offenses, including conspiracy, RICO, murder, carjacking, kidnapping,
firearms violations and weapon charges. Many of the defendants also
have been charged by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for
being in the United States illegally. These defendants are more violent
than our average prisoner and require extra security when transporting
and producing them for trial and various hearings. One trial involving
seven defendants has already been completed and the second trial is
currently in progress. The trials are scheduled to continue throughout
2008, and additional arrests are expected as the investigations
continue.
Aside from the potential threats within the courtrooms when high-
threat trials are underway, the increase in gang-related prosecutions
and the growing number of gang members in federal detention place
additional burdens on the Marshals Service. In many instances, we must
not only separate co-defendants from one another, but we must also
segregate prisoners within the courthouse cellblock due to their
history of violence, potential violence with other detainees, or risk
of escape. Support for the President's budget request in this area will
assist in our ability to meet these additional responsibilities.
High-threat trials provide special challenges for the Marshals
Service. However, our Deputy Marshals are hard at work every day in
every judicial district handling prisoners for court appearances.
Agency-wide in fiscal year 2006, our personnel produced prisoners for
642,000 court proceedings. I am proud to say that these productions
were completed without any injury to a judge, witness, or prosecutor.
adam walsh child protection and safety act
I am personally honored that last July, Congress named the Marshals
Service as the lead agency to investigate sex offender registration
violations. This important new enforcement role, outlined in the Adam
Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, grants us the authority to
protect the most innocent among us--young children. Signed into law on
July 27, 2006, the Adam Walsh Act is landmark legislation that will not
only change the face of our communities by making them safer for
vulnerable women and children, but it will also, in many respects,
change the face of the Marshals Service.
The Marshals Service has three distinct missions pursuant to the
Adam Walsh Act: to assist state, local, and tribal jurisdictions in the
location and apprehension of noncompliant sex-offenders; to investigate
violations of non-compliance; and to assist in the identification and
location of sex offenders relocated as a result of a major disaster.
To carry out these new missions, we established the Sex Offender
Apprehension Program and designated a program management office (the
Sex Offender Investigations Branch) to direct and coordinate the
implementation of the Act within the agency. The Marshals Service also
designated sex offender investigations coordinators in each district
office and Regional Fugitive Task Force to establish and maintain
effective contacts with sex offender registration authorities,
corrections officials, and other law enforcement agencies throughout
the country. Last month, we trained 52 of these coordinators at the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). There are
three additional courses scheduled for this fiscal year, which will
bring the total number of Deputy Marshals specially trained in sex
offender investigations to approximately 200. To date the Marshals
Service has opened 149 cases on convicted sex offenders for violations
of the Act and we are participating in the Attorney General's ``Project
Safe Childhood'' initiative.
I am proud to say that the Marshals Service has a long-standing and
mutually supportive relationship with NCMEC, which has been enhanced by
the enactment of the Adam Walsh Act. One Deputy Marshal has been
assigned full-time to NCMEC as a liaison to our Investigative Services
Division, and this year we will be assisting NCMEC with their media
campaign to encourage compliance with sex offender registration laws.
In fiscal year 2008, pending the availability of resources, NCMEC and
the USMS also will establish a National Sex Offender Targeting Center
(NSOTC) to assist in identifying and prioritizing non-compliant sex
offenders and to provide analytical support to federal, state, and
local law enforcement agencies.
Full implementation and enforcement of all provisions contained
within the Act will require additional resources. Therefore, the
Marshals Service requests 54 positions, including 43 Deputy Marshals,
and $7.8 million to begin staffing areas of the country having large
numbers of non-compliant sex offenders and to staff the NSOTC in
partnership with NCMEC.
It is estimated that there are nearly 600,000 registered sex
offenders in the nation and as many as 100,000 non-compliant sex
offenders. The requested resources will allow the Marshals Service to
identify and apprehend non-compliant sex offenders--especially those
who commit offenses against children--and to provide analytical support
to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
southwest border enforcement
With the recent investment of resources to increase illegal
immigrant apprehension along the Southwest Border, the Marshals Service
is facing the daily challenge of utilizing our limited number of
personnel to successfully protect and secure judicial personnel and
federal detainees, and to safely transport those detainees. To
alleviate this problem, the Marshals Service requests 53 positions,
including 40 Deputy Marshals, and $7.5 million for Southwest Border
(SWB) district offices.
The prisoner population levels along the United States' Southwest
Border have been an area of particular concern to the USMS since 1994,
the start of intensified immigration initiatives in that region. The
addition of thousands of agents from both ICE and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), together with increased enforcement of
immigration laws by federal prosecutors, has caused another significant
increase in the number of illegal immigrants captured and detained
along the Southwest Border, further contributing to increases in the
prisoner population. The average daily prisoner population in Southwest
Border districts has increased by 78 percent from 2000 to 2006 and
there are no signs of this upward trend abating. For example, the Del
Rio office in the Western District of Texas is now handling an average
of 400 prisoners a day.
The CBP's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes funding to hire
an additional 3,000 agents which, if approved by Congress, will
drastically increase the Marshals Service workload. Without the
resources requested in the President's budget, the USMS will have
difficulty managing this increased prisoner population and the prisoner
productions that will be required. When additional Border Patrol agents
or border enforcement resources are added, the potential exists for
creating massive criminal prosecutions in Southwest Border judicial
districts. Additional Marshals Service resources, including Deputy
Marshals and administrative positions to handle the resulting criminal
workload, will be required to meet the growing burden.
Statistics from the Drug Enforcement Administration demonstrate
that drug-trafficking and drug-related gang activity along the
Southwest Border is increasing, which also affects the USMS workload.
The Marshals Service is handling prisoner productions for high-profile
prosecutions such as trials involving the Arrellano-Felix drug cartel
and the ``Mexican Mafia'' in Southern California. As a result of
stepped-up enforcement and greater cooperation from the Mexican
government in returning these individuals for prosecution in the United
States, the USMS will continue to play a large role in these
proceedings.
fugitive investigations
The United States Marshals Service is the federal government's
primary agency for conducting fugitive investigations. In fiscal year
2006, more than 39,000 federal fugitive felons were apprehended through
USMS-led task forces and warrant squads. Working with authorities at
the state and local levels, USMS-led fugitive task forces also arrested
more than 55,000 state and local fugitives. The ``force-multiplier''
effect of the Marshals Service's network of six regional and 85
district-based task forces provides results that are unmatched in law
enforcement. In all, more than 135,000 federal, state, and local
fugitives were apprehended by the USMS and its law enforcement partners
during fiscal year 2006.
The Marshals Service has responded to requests from the State
Department and the Department of Justice to provide specialized
fugitive investigative training to foreign law enforcement agencies. In
fiscal year 2006, the USMS conducted seven training missions involving
170 foreign police officials from ten countries. These training
missions included courses that ranged in content from basic prisoner
handling to advanced electronic and financial surveillance techniques.
Since fiscal year 1999, the USMS has trained more than 400 foreign
officers from 22 countries in fugitive investigation.
The Marshals Service continues to improve strategies used to
apprehend fugitives. In October 2006, we teamed with our state, local,
and federal colleagues in the largest national round-up focused on
violent sex offenders and gang members. Operation FALCON III (Federal
and Local Cops Organized Nationally) resulted in the apprehension of
more than 10,700 fugitives, including 1,629 sex offenders and 364
documented gang members. Teamwork was the key during this seven-day
initiative. More than 1,060 agencies participated, with an average of
3,000 law enforcement officers working each day in Marshals Service
districts primarily east of the Mississippi River. By removing some of
the country's most dangerous sex offenders and gang members from the
streets, Operation FALCON III made America's communities safer and
contributed to the Attorney General's ``Project Safe Childhood''
initiative. The operation also resulted in the safe recovery of a
missing child, the arrest of a convicted sex offender who was
babysitting three young children at the time of his arrest, and the
seizure of child pornography.
This success followed an earlier initiative, Operation FALCON II,
which occurred in April 2006 in districts in the western half of the
United States. More than 9,000 fugitives were arrested and more than
10,400 warrants were cleared during Operation FALCON II. Since April
2005, the three FALCON operations have resulted in the arrests of
30,110 fugitives and the clearance of 37,603 warrants. Of those
arrested, 3,314 were sex offenders and 681 were gang members. These
results are a clear demonstration of what can be accomplished when law
enforcement agencies pool their human resources and investigative
assets to achieve a common goal.
The success of these fugitive initiatives has been recognized by
the Department of Justice, which will soon announce a series of mini-
FALCONs designed to focus on violent gang members in high priority
cities. The first of these initiatives occurred the week of February
25, 2007, in Baltimore, Maryland. Coordinated by the USMS Capital Area
Regional Fugitive Task Force, we worked with our state and local law
enforcement partners to arrest 195 felons in just five days. Of this
number, 24 were documented gang members and another 20 were suspected
gang members. Task Force officers arrested four individuals who had
been listed as among the City of Baltimore's Most Wanted fugitives.
The Marshals Service also is fully engaged in the battle against
violent crime perpetrated by gang members. We have assigned a
supervisory criminal investigator and a criminal analyst to the
National Gang Intelligence Center, and we are a full participant in the
newly-formed Gang Targeting, Enforcement and Coordination Center
(GangTECC), whose primary goal is to establish national coordination,
intelligence, and enforcement mechanisms to disrupt and dismantle the
most significant, violent, national and regional gangs.
The Marshals Service's activities with regard to gangs are not
limited to enforcement, however. I have directed our district offices
to explore creative avenues to address prevention and have encouraged
participation in initiatives such as the G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance,
Education, and Training) program, which focuses on providing life
skills to students to help them avoid using delinquent behavior and
violence to solve their problems.
The Marshals Service intends to expand its Fugitive Safe Surrender
program in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. Authorized under the
Adam Walsh Act, Fugitive Safe Surrender is a creative, non-violent, and
highly-successful, approach to fugitive apprehension. The goal of
Fugitive Safe Surrender is to reduce the risk to law enforcement
officers who pursue fugitives, to the neighborhoods in which they hide,
and to the fugitives themselves. It encourages persons wanted for non-
violent felony or misdemeanor crimes to voluntarily surrender to the
law in a faith-based or other neutral setting. Partnering with state
and local law enforcement, the judiciary, and the religious community,
the Marshals Service has undertaken two successful Fugitive Safe
Surrender operations in Cleveland, Ohio, and Phoenix, Arizona, which
resulted in the surrender of more than 2,150 individuals wanted on
outstanding warrants.
The next Fugitive Safe Surrender operation will take place in
Indianapolis, Indiana beginning on April 25, 2007. Additional cities
looking to host the program include Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Camden, New
Jersey; Louisville, Kentucky; Nashville, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas;
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Montgomery, Alabama; Jackson, Mississippi;
Richmond, Virginia; and Washington, DC.
witness security program
One of the most critical, and least known, responsibilities of the
United States Marshals Service is the administration of the federal
government's Witness Security Program. This Program provides for the
security, health, and safety of government witnesses and their
immediate dependents whose lives are in danger as a result of their
testimony against drug traffickers, organized crime members, and
terrorists. After the events of September 11, 2001, the Witness
Security Program has assisted in the production and relocation of
witnesses testifying in terrorism-related cases nationwide and abroad.
Since the inception of the Program in 1970, more than 7,900
witnesses and over 9,700 family members have entered the program and
have been protected, relocated and given new identities by the U.S.
Marshals Service. The successful operation of this program is widely
recognized as providing a unique and valuable tool to the government's
war against major criminal conspirators and organized crime, and I
appreciate the Subcommittee's continuing support for this critical
mission. I am pleased to report that no program participant who has
followed the security guidelines of the program has been harmed while
under the active protection of the U.S. Marshals Service.
The fundamental principle of the Witness Security Program is the
lifelong involvement with the witnesses and their families. As the
program has evolved, the services provided to program participants
continue to become more complex. For example, approximately 70 percent
of new case participants are foreign-born. Relocating foreign nationals
and ensuring their assimilation in a new community presents a host of
difficult issues to overcome, including language and cultural barriers.
In addition to its primary mission related to the nationwide
protection and relocation of witnesses, the Witness Security Program is
currently involved in many other foreign initiatives in conjunction
with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the United
Nations. As the recognized experts in this field, during the last three
years, personnel assigned to the Witness Security Program have assisted
countries such as Austria, Bahamas, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile,
Colombia, Guatemala, Kosovo, Mexico, Panama, Russia, Serbia, and
Thailand in the establishment and training of witness security units.
In July of 2006, the U.S. Marshals Service sponsored the First
International Witness Protection Symposium in Washington, DC.
Participants included heads of witness security units and Senior Police
Officials representing more than 17 countries across three continents.
Additionally, the Marshals Service, in coordination with the Department
of Justice, has posted a team of witness security specialists at the
United States Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, to facilitate and provide
consultation to the Colombian witness security program.
2007 global war on terror supplemental
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for your continued support
of our law enforcement and training efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and
for the Senate's recent passage of our request in the Global War on
Terror Supplemental. The funds you have approved will be used to
enhance security for two terrorist trials, the Jose Padilla trial in
the Southern District of Florida, and the upcoming Babar Ahmed trial in
the District of Connecticut.
Last year, Congress provided $1 million directly to the Marshals
Service as part of the Emergency Supplemental to fund our activities in
Iraq. Other funding comes to us from the Department of State. Since
2004, we have deployed Deputy Marshals from our Special Operations
Group (SOG) to provide expertise in five key areas: security for
judges, security for court facilities, security for witnesses,
investigations tied to the Regime Crimes Liaison Office and the Major
Crimes Task Force, and police training. To date, approximately 70 of
our 98 Special Operations personnel have served on deployments of at
least six months to Iraq.
When enacted, the additional funding provided in the fiscal year
2007 GWOT supplemental will be used to continue our operations in Iraq,
and expand the Marshals Service's role in Afghanistan, where the
Department of Justice has a significant role in combating organized
crime and drug cartels. Funding will be used for logistical support and
equipment to deploy Deputy Marshals to Afghanistan to establish a
Judicial and Witness Security Protection Unit within the Counter-
Narcotics Police of Afghanistan. The Unit will enable narcotics
trafficking cases to be successfully prosecuted under the Afghan
Counter-Narcotics law. Until a safe environment is created, Afghan
judges may continue to resist holding trials because of the threats
made against their lives. Currently, our Special Operations Group has
four personnel assigned to Kabul for a six-month rotation.
conclusion
Madam Chairman, Senator Shelby, and Members of the Subcommittee, on
behalf of the men and women of the United States Marshals Service,
thank you for your ongoing support of our programs. In the last year,
we have made significant progress in addressing the legitimate concerns
expressed to us by Members of Congress concerning judicial security,
and we have built upon our successful track record of reducing the
number of violent felons in our communities. We also have achieved
positive results in our less visible program areas, such as training of
Deputy Marshals, criminal investigators, threat investigators, and
administrative employees.
However, I know that there is still much to do. I am committed to
ensuring that we are efficient stewards of the resources you have
entrusted to us, and I look forward to working with you to improve our
performance in areas that are critical to domestic security and to
build upon the successes we have already achieved. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have at this time.
______
Biographical Sketch of John F. Clark
John F. Clark was appointed Director of the United States Marshals
Service on March 17, 2006.
Prior to his role as Director of the Marshals Service, Mr. Clark
was appointed by President George W. Bush on November 12, 2002 to serve
as the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia,
which includes the Alexandria, Richmond, and Norfolk, Virginia offices.
Prior to his appointment as U.S. Marshal, he was the Acting Marshal and
Chief Deputy for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mr. Clark is a veteran of the Marshals Service, with over 20 years
of experience. He began his career as a Deputy United States Marshal in
the San Francisco, California office and later served in the San Jose,
California; Richmond, Virginia; and Alexandria, Virginia offices. In
addition to his field experience, Mr. Clark served in the Special
Operations Group for seven years. During his tenure with the Marshals
Service, Mr. Clark has held numerous senior management positions within
the Headquarters organization, including Chief of the Internal Affairs
Division and Chief of the International Fugitive Investigations
Division. Prior to his employment with the Marshals Service, Mr. Clark
was employed by the United States Capitol Police and the United States
Border Patrol.
Mr. Clark holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Syracuse
University and an Associates degree from Hudson Valley Community
College. He has completed the Executive Leadership programs at the
Center for Creative Leadership and the Aspen Institute. He is married
and lives in Virginia.
Senator Mikulski. Well thank you very much, each and every
one of your testimonies is much appreciated.
Ordinarily we focus on numbers and the financial aspects of
your agencies, but today I think is a little bit different and
one of the things about each and every one of your testimonies
talks about partnership, partnership, partnership. That your
agencies stand sentry at a variety of threats facing the
American people.
The marshals from threats to our judges to pedophiles
threatening their children on playgrounds, DEA at our borders
and outside of our borders, working in world communities and of
course, ATF, fighting gun crime, the trafficking of illegal
guns, the trafficking of illegal bullets, and their whole
effort to contribute to violent crime impact teams.
Let me go to my question because we often talk about how do
we connect the dots and how do we connect the people? How do we
work together to amplify Federal resources at the local level?
ATF deg.VIRGINIA TECH SITUATION
So I'm going to ask you if you could, tell me what you did
in terms of the Virginia Tech situation. People would say what
would the marshals be doing there? What about ATF, DEA? I'd
like you to tell your story because I think it shows how you
work and how you maximize your resources.
Mr. Sullivan, why don't we start with you and just go down
the line and then I'll have an additional question or two and
then we'll come back to you on the issues related to innovation
and staffing.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I certainly
don't want to understate the role of the State and local law
enforcement in an event like that.
Senator Mikulski. No, this is where we want to talk. People
don't think of you as first responders and also the augmenting
and appropriate role where there is no Federalization of the
situation so we understand, we acknowledge a campus police
force overwhelmed by an event of staggering magnitude, a local
sheriff's department, et cetera.
It's a series of circles that went out.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you for the question. ATF was notified
shortly after the second event occurred and we responded
immediately with 12 special agents from the Roanoke field
office. They did a range of things that would typically happen
in an event like this, from trying to restore some order in an
environment where there was a lot of panic, a lot of fear, and
a lot of chaos, partnering up with State and local partners,
and identifying exactly where crime scenes were.
You can imagine an event that took place over a several
hour period with victims, both victims that were killed and
surviving victims, had a crime scene that was extremely large.
We tried to identify where the crime scenes are, what evidence
might be available at those crime scenes to help in the
investigation, and participated in interviews.
So from a general perspective, we did everything that a
general law enforcement response would be expected to do and
then we focused in on some very specialized skills that ATF has
to support State and local law enforcement in the area of gun
tracing. We had identified at the scene two weapons that were
believed to be used.
The questions during the early stages of the investigation
was whether these two crime scenes were linked, the earlier
crime scene that happened in the dormitory and the crime scene
that unfolded in the classrooms. So it becomes critically
important if there is a connection between the two that you can
make those connections with the weapons and also the ballistics
evidence.
So the early stages of the investigation were spent looking
at the weapons and our ability to trace those weapons in terms
of where they were purchased from, who purchased them, and when
they were purchased. We also tied in the ballistics evidence,
using representative samplings of the ballistics evidence that
were secured during the early stages. We had an investigative
lead based on evidence that was secured at the crime scene, a
receipt in a backpack, that sent us to a FFL in Virginia.
Senator Mikulski. What is an FFL?
Mr. Sullivan. It's a Federal firearms licensed dealer.
Senator Mikulski. Ok, just wanted to be sure.
Mr. Sullivan. We had that investigative lead that we
explored by going out and interviewing the FFL to determine
whether or not there was some additional information that could
be helpful. Beyond that, we had the two weapons and as it was
reported in the media, the serial numbers on the weapons were
obliterated, making it more difficult in the early stages to
identify where those weapons were originally shipped to for the
purpose of private sale.
The weapons and the ballistics evidence were sent to the
laboratory in Ammendale, Maryland, for the purposes of raising
the serial number, and to do test firings of the weapons to
compare ballistics evidence and establish that the two scenes
and the two weapons were, in fact, connected.
Senator Mikulski. Well, that's a stunning set of resources
and I'm going to come back before our colleagues just to be
clear that what ATF provided was people and expertise. They
discovered there were multiple guns used in the crime. This was
a human tragedy; the scene of human tragedy was also a crime
scene.
Now what was the Marshals Service doing there? Why would
the marshals be involved in this and what were they doing?
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, we did have the opportunity to send several of our
deputy marshals there. Six deputies from our Blue Ridge
fugitive task force responded right after the shooting began
and before the full knowledge of the single shooter became
apparent. They were sent to help secure the crime scene, to
support the State and local investigators that were also
responding, and to offer our expertise in the event that this
individual had fled the scene, before they realized that he had
killed himself.
We had several of our deputy marshals who responded to
Virginia Tech. We also offered the assistance of our national
headquarters using these additional resources to locate
individuals, in case there was a second shooter on the loose.
We immediately supplied some of our investigators to help. I
would also note that they were very instrumental, during and
shortly after the shooting ended, in helping to secure the
crime scene, supporting the local officers, and getting injured
victims to the hospital.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I'm sure they thank you for it. Ms.
Tandy, tell us about DEA.
Ms. Tandy. DEA's work through all of our enforcement
operations is done in conjunction with State and local law
enforcement so as soon as the shootings occurred, DEA contacted
the local police department as well as the State police to
determine what kind of assistance they needed from us.
We were told that they specifically needed us to assist the
SWAT team in providing perimeter security as well as in
conducting searches of the buildings and enforcement sweeps of
the various campus buildings. DEA's entire Roanoke field office
responded to the campus to conduct those two responsibilities.
It's actually a small office for us in the Washington division.
Senator Mikulski. How many were there?
Ms. Tandy. Ten agents responded and stayed throughout the
course until everything was secure.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I wanted you to tell your story.
I'm really proud of you because this was a terrible thing that
happened and just imagine a small campus police force, a local
community with a sheriff police force and rural communities who
are never overstaffed. They had a tragedy unfolding of enormous
proportion and needed outside help.
They had to protect the students. They had to deal with the
crime scene. They didn't know if there were multiple killers
and they had to deal with the panic that was occurring. The
fact that you all work together on a day-to-day basis on other
issues, whether it's meth, drugs or other areas related to
violent crime. You all knew how to react in mutual response. Is
that right?
So when you all came in they weren't suspicious of you.
They knew you and were eager to have you.
Well, I think what this shows though is several things,
number one, really the job that you do. This is one of the
reasons I wanted to have this hearing. I think you're
undervalued and often overlooked in the Federal budget.
I'm going to come back, others have questions that will go
then to your budget because we need to support you so you can
do your national mission and play such a unique role to local
communities in terms of our community safety. Whether it's the
brilliant forensics that's going on right in Maryland to
identify the guns, the bullets and so on with their unique
tracing to the staffing that provided and at the end of the day
you could go back to your other jobs while this community is in
the process of recovery and healing.
I do have specific budget questions but I wanted you to be
able to tell your story and with that I'm going to turn to
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you Senator Mikulski. Director Clark,
I understand that a former marshal's daughter was wounded in
the shootings in Virginia Tech last Monday and that also her
efforts saved the lives of some of her classmates. I believe
the marshal was Jim Carney, former marshal. Tell us that story;
tell us what happened from what you know.
Mr. Clark. It's a remarkable and a scary story. I had a
chance to talk to Jim Carney, the retired deputy marshal. His
daughter was among the individuals who were in the classroom, a
German class, where most of the individuals, regrettably were
killed.
His daughter was one of only four who survived in that
particular room. She was struck in the hand and one bullet
grazed her head. I'm told that she is due to be released from
the hospital today so, thankfully, she is making a quick and
steady recovery. She also is credited with the other three who
survived by helping to block the doorway to the gunman who had
returned and was intent on finishing them off. They were able
to hold the door back and to stave off his attempts to get back
into the classroom.
When I heard the story and I talked to Mr. Carney
personally, I just could not believe the story and, of course,
was glad that his daughter was going to recover. He was quite
broken up by the whole event so my heart went out to him and
the many victims of who were caught in that terrible event.
ATF deg.NATIONAL CENTER FOR EXPLOSIVES TRAINING AND RESEARCH
Senator Shelby. Director Sullivan, the National Center for
Explosives Training and Research, what's the status of this
project at the moment? I believe that we had gotten $10 million
and you need $40 million, is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. I think we've estimated that the total cost
for the project is somewhere between $40 to $45 million and the
2006 budget, thanks to your leadership, had $5 million set
aside specifically to do some early stages of site selection
and development. We're extremely excited. We think this is
really visionary.
Senator Shelby. What will it add to ATF's ability to work
in this area?
Mr. Sullivan. I think when you're looking at the potential
future threat of explosives, we have to do everything we can,
within our ability, to protect the American public and we have
to do it on multiple fronts.
Obviously, in the whole area of explosives, detection is
critically important, as are research, regulation, and post
blast investigation. The post blast investigation reflects
failures of the regulatory piece that protects the explosives
material and the detection piece. The NLETR project brings a
wealth of expertise to one location that we can use for
research and development and sophisticated training, not only
for Federal law enforcement agencies but for all of our State
and local partners. There's a huge demand for training in these
areas.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. Sullivan. Because locals recognize the vulnerabilities
concerning explosives, I think once this center is up and
operational, it's going to draw our resources together from all
around the country, specialized resources that we can share
with others that require this training. Even though this is
very preliminary, we haven't even done groundbreaking at this
stage of the game, we already have 11 agencies that are
committed to sharing their expertise as part of this model. So
it's visionary. It's something I hope will be a legacy of mine.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Sullivan. Thanks to your leadership, we would hope to
have this facility fully funded at some point in time to go
forward.
We have done site selection, as you know. We think the
location at Redstone is the most appropriate location because
of all the other expertise that's there. We have sufficient
funding at this point in time to do some work at a range to
allow us to use a range facility on site, to construct, not
sophisticated classroom space, but a modified building where we
could do some classroom training, and we have some money
available to do some parking facilities but certainly we don't
have sufficient funding at this point in time to do everything
that you say that you'd want the site to have.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. This would carry you to another
dimension at ATF as far as explosives, detection and everything
else is concerned. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. It recognizes the expertise that
the ATF has developed in this area over the last number of
decades, focusing on explosives detection because of the
threats posed by domestic and international terrorism. The
NLETR project would bring us to that next significant level in
terms of continuing to develop that expertise, staying several
steps ahead of those folks that have an interest in posing a
threat to us and to our country and capitalizing and sharing
our resources and expertise with our partners at the State,
local, and Federal levels.
Senator Shelby. And also you have synergy with the Army
there and the FBI. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely and both have been extremely
supportive with regards to the concept, the location and
willingness to be part of a joint effort in the area of
developing and sharing that expertise.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Shelby and Senator
Lautenberg thank you. I was concerned that, I know that you
have to get to the Holocaust Memorial service.
Senator Lautenberg. I did want to, Madam Chairman, if I
can.
Senator Mikulski. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. If I can take a quick couple of
minutes?
Senator Mikulski. Yes, yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Is that acceptable to Senator Stevens?
Senator Mikulski. Yes.
ATF deg.VIRGINIA TECH
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. I look at what
we're witnessing here Madam Chairman and in these days of gloom
and shock pervades our country. There can't be anyplace on our
soil that doesn't share a feeling of personal mourning as we
look at this incredible tragedy, almost impossible to imagine.
Friends, when I look at the departments that each of you is
responsible for, I salute you and the people who work in those
departments.
We have this acceleration of crime in all phases whether
it's from drugs or guns and I look at the budget and the
request for all of the Departments of Justice within Justice
and we have about a 1\1/2\-percent increase. The request is
$21.8 billion for 2008 and the war in Iraq costs us $3 billion
a week, a week, so we've got 7 weeks of that cost devoted to
all of our internal law enforcement projects that you folks are
responsible for. We've cut out the COPS program essentially
that's down from a level of $432 million down to nothing. Madam
Chairman, you know how valuable that COPS program has been.
We have to examine the terrible events at Virginia Tech and
it needs to be done perhaps in a more sober moment entirely
devoting our energy at that hearing to that. What did we learn
from that? We learned that mad people, insane people, deranged
people can do such damage. I don't understand why we continue
to require data derived from gun purchases to be destroyed in
24 hours. Why it is that we have 3 days to approve or deny a
gun sale when perhaps there is more time needed.
These aren't criminals. I'm not saying that everybody that
buys a gun is a criminal, heavens no. And I'm not saying that
we should wipe out the ownership of guns. I'm saying that it
should be responsibly done and we shouldn't be trying to hide
information, for what purpose?
I wrote a law in 1996 that said that any spousal abuser
should not be permitted to own a gun. It was a tough fight and
Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby know that I put that into a
budget to a supplemental bill so it was must-pass legislation.
Fought like the devil to find a way to get it through.
We have kept 150,000 guns out of the hands of bullies. Can
you imagine anybody who can get into that kind of a rage that
they want to beat up their wife or beat their kids or abuse
them in any other way, if they had been able to get their hands
on a gun conveniently? What might have happened?
America, wake up, wake up. We've had 11,000 deaths,
homicides in a single year of measurement and what we found is
that four countries, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and Canada
had 650 deaths and what I did was took a group that population
is approximately ours and they had 650 deaths from handguns,
weapons. We had 11,000 in the same year, 11,000. Why? Why did
more than 10,000 of our citizens perish because we have these
rules.
ATF deg.CRIME GUN TRACES
I ask you Mr. Sullivan, and I'm grateful to my colleagues
for allowing me this time. I wrote to your agency last year
requesting the number of crime gun traces of the five-seven
pistol. We know what a terrible weapon that is, can penetrate
body armor; a number of those guns were recovered in New
Jersey.
The answer I received was, ``ATF has determined that the
requested information cannot be disclosed to you.'' Mr.
Sullivan, do you agree with the policy of restricting gun trace
information this way and are you concerned that this policy
will limit efforts to fight illegal gun trafficking.
Mr. Sullivan. Senator, thank you for the question, is it
specifically to the information that you were requesting and
limiting the information to you as a Member of Congress?
Senator Lautenberg. The number of crime gun traces of the
five-seven pistol, weapon that's out there and can penetrate
body armor.
Mr. Sullivan. I'm of the opinion that that information
could be shared with you and with this subcommittee. I think
you have a legitimate interest in learning that information.
In terms of restricting gun tracing information, from my
experience as a prosecutor, a State prosecutor, and more
recently as a U.S. attorney, I think gun tracing information
should be considered law enforcement sensitive information and
should only be shared with law enforcement agencies that have a
need to know that information. That's been my approach in
dealing with law enforcement sensitive information generally
and it's my approach in terms of dealing specifically with gun
tracing information.
Now, having said that, I don't see anything, in my
understanding or interpretation of statutory language, that
prohibits me from sharing the gun tracing information with law
enforcement agencies that have ongoing investigations as it
relates to gun trafficking, patterns within their jurisdiction
or specifically as it relates to gun tracing data based on
weapons that they've asked ATF to trace.
So I would hope and I'm not aware that we aren't doing
this, but I would hope that ATF is sharing as much gun tracing
information with law enforcement agencies that are requesting
that information to enhance their ability to protect the people
within their jurisdiction.
Senator Lautenberg. And not to be shared with the Congress
of the United States?
Mr. Sullivan. I'm sorry?
Senator Lautenberg. And not to be shared with Senators or
Representatives in our Government?
Mr. Sullivan. No, I think I said earlier, Senator, the
information.
Senator Lautenberg. I heard what you said, Mr. Sullivan and
then I heard you kind of make sure that that information
continued to be restricted.
Mr. Sullivan. As I understand the other question you asked
Senator, and I apologize because I did not.
Senator Lautenberg. That's alright.
Mr. Sullivan. Because I did not study the letter you sent.
I did have the opportunity to read it and the response that was
provided by ATF. I think that's more general information as
opposed to specific law enforcement trace information. That
type of general information, if you and this subcommittee had
an interest in learning about what's happening generally with
regard to types of weapons that are being traced, unless I'm
told otherwise, could be shared with you and the members of
this subcommittee.
[The information follows:]
ATF deg.Trace Data Disclosure
As it is ATF's policy that aggregated firearms trace data may be
shared with members of congressional committees with jurisdictional
authority over the Bureau, a policy consistent with current law, ATF
will be providing the information the Senator has requested.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, forgive me and I have
such respect for Mr. Sullivan, his record and law enforcement
but the reason that this information is not available is
because a Congressman decided that every year he would put that
into a bill, to an appropriations bill and there is no earthly
reason in my view that that single person should be able to
restrict this information.
We want to find out everything we can about this instance,
but this is only one of many, it's just the largest of them
all. We start with Columbine High School and go through
shocking events in our history and we've got to find out ways
to stop this. Thank you very much and thank you also.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Sullivan, of course our colleague is
referring to the Tiahrt legislation and one suggestion is if
you can take the Lautenberg letter and look at it in terms of
the consequences of implementing the Tiahrt. We'll talk about
the Tiahrt later.
The Senator raises questions not about, what he wants to
know, about an individual case. Rather he wants to have the
epidemiology of information, data.
We're now going to move on though, our two other colleagues
have been waiting, Senator Stevens and then Senator Domenici.
And Senator Domenici, I'll stay here as long as you need us to
stay.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici doesn't have a timeframe,
I do.
Senator Mikulski. Okay.
Senator Stevens. I do want to join in congratulating you. I
think there's been a really upbeat feeling about law
enforcement recently because of the successes you've had.
It's unfortunate and we all mourn the situation down in
Virginia but from the point of view of what was going on, I
think that your people have all been doing a much better job in
really trying to get to the bottom of many of the problems we
face.
DEA deg.METHAMPHETAMINE LABS IN ALASKA
However, I am, Ms. Tandy, a little disturbed that the
statistics show there are fewer meth labs in my State, our
State, Alaska, now but there's a higher level of meth in the
State. I talked to some of your people in Anchorage. I found
that they feel that a great deal of that is coming in now from
the islands of the Pacific and people aren't using labs anymore
because it's cheaper just to bring the stuff in from some
enormous lab that's really not even looked at as far as the
Pacific Islands are concerned. Do you have people who check
places like Samoa and other places that we believe a lot of
this meth is coming from? Are you attentive to the problems of
the west being now inundated by imported meth?
Ms. Tandy. I share your concerns about the shift in local
domestic production of methamphetamine, which has dropped
through the basement, which is a great thing in terms of the
environmental risks and social child services issues, to the
shift to the production of methamphetamine elsewhere outside of
this country and the smuggling into this country from outside.
Most of that is being produced in Mexico and elsewhere. The
production in the Pacific and the areas outside of China,
Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines are all matters that DEA
is focused on. We have the largest law enforcement presence of
any U.S. law enforcement agency outside of this country. We
have focused our resources on the foreign side in the very
areas that you've talked about as well as in the western
hemisphere and beyond.
The production of methamphetamine by foreign trafficking
organizations has been fueled by the fact that the precursor
chemicals for the most part come from China and are then
diverted and used to fuel those labs in the areas that you've
mentioned as well as in Mexico and elsewhere.
We conduct our investigations.
Senator Stevens. I thought we were entitled to 7 minutes?
The set there seems to be running awfully fast.
Senator Mikulski. You can take your time.
Senator Stevens. I don't want to interrupt you, but I am
limited and I do have the problem about the number of people in
the State like mine.
We're one-fifth the size of the United States, have the
largest cargo landing airport now in the country and we feel a
lot of the meth is coming in by cargo and somehow or other
getting off of those planes that come through our Anchorage
airport.
I would urge you to take a look at that because I think
with the decrease in the number of meth labs your people
generally felt happy about it and reduce some of the effort in
our State but the good news was as you say the fewer labs but
the bad news is there's an overwhelming amount of meth.
Ms. Tandy it's in small villages of 20 and 40 families.
It's finding its way all the way through the 240 small native
villages in my State and it is the number one problem that we
face. I would urge that somehow you take a look at the concept
of how many agents you have left. You only have 11 agents left
in the whole State now.
Ms. Tandy. I understand Senator and this has been part of
DEA's problem. We are in a hiring freeze and are unable to
expand our agent presence. To the contrary we are having to
reduce our number of agents in order to meet our budget. The
agents in Alaska, to the extent that, actually beyond Alaska,
everywhere in the United States, those agents that were focused
on domestic labs have shifted their focus to assisting in these
investigations for the smuggling of finished meth into Alaska
and elsewhere in the United States but I appreciate the point
that you're making. It has been a concern to all of us.
Senator Stevens. Well, I would hope that you would take a
look at the concept of working out some cooperation with the
various local people. This meth has to be getting out to these
small villages through the post office. The only thing that
goes into those villages is what we call bypass mail. Now
somewhere someone is putting together packages that contain
meth and we're subsidizing the transportation of that package
into every village in the State.
I do think it's a matter of investigation and believe me
those villages are primarily supported by the Federal
Government. They're native people, unemployment is about 85
percent. How they're getting this stuff is driving us nuts and
those kids get on this meth and they start coming into town.
They will come to the nearest town and then they'll try to find
their way to Anchorage or Fairbanks and they're committing
horrendous crimes. We've got drive by shootings that we've
never had before. We have enormous, just enormous theft and
burglary and attacks on the person and it's coming, we believe
because of this just overwhelming presence of meth.
I know the rest of the country has the same problem but
it's accentuated in our State. They must be giving it away in
those villages in order to get them on to this habit and they
come to town to steal and commit crimes to get money to
continue it. So I urge you to do something about finding a way
to work out a cooperative program to get to the bottom of this
thing. It's taken off in the last year to the point where it is
really crisis stage.
I think you probably add up all the crimes that these young
people have done, committed in our State in the last year and
it would equal the number of deaths that took place in
Virginia. I'm serious. It's a very serious situation in Alaska
and we end up with 11 agents. We end up with 15 marshals and
eight ATF officers in an area one-fifth the size of the United
States. They can barely take care of Anchorage alone.
I understand what you're saying and we're going to do
something about that freeze. I don't like that freeze at all.
Senator Mikulski. Well, if I might just comment to the
Senator. First of all, just know that we're sympathetic to your
situation.
DEA deg.HIRING FREEZE
The second thing is in the supplemental, we lift the hiring
freeze. Working with the administration and DEA we lifted the
hiring freeze and have provided DEA with an additional $25
million. So that's just as a point of reference to you Senator,
but second, we would encourage Ms. Tandy meet with the
Senator's very able staff because he really raises something
that's rising to a, I think, a crisis situation.
So know we're working with that and then anything that we
can be doing because we don't think you should have a hiring
freeze.
Ms. Tandy. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. And we'll come back to that even to talk
about it in a more substantial form.
Senator Stevens. Added to that is the problem of increased
illegal immigration into our State. We've never had that
before, but all of a sudden now we are just inundated with
illegals following this meth. I think meth is the key so I
appreciate your comments.
Senator Mikulski. Senator, any way we work with you, we're
happy to do it because I think it's also a story that's
happening around the country. You bet, you bet.
Senator Stevens. Those planes come right down to this, 70
percent of the air cargo that's coming through from the Pacific
is coming through Anchorage now. It's coming into the rest of
the country. This is the place to shut it off. Thank you very
much.
Senator Mikulski. You are welcome, sir. Senator Domenici,
we're glad to have you back.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I'm
delighted to be back and I don't frequent this subcommittee as
you know while I serve on it for quite some time, but meth
brings me running over here because New Mexico as a border
State is having an absolute.
There's a rage occurring in reference to meth and New
Mexico and I think most of you who are participants in anything
to do with meth you know that our Congressman Pearce has a done
a pretty good job at bringing that meth problem to the surface
in New Mexico and it is not, there's not the same problem of
marijuana.
DEA deg.SOUTHWEST BORDER AND METH ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
Marijuana may be bigger in numbers and the like and alcohol
might be but this one is one of the worst we've ever seen. You
know that. It's going after all kinds of people including many
women and they're not young women. They're women with children
whose children have been taken away because they can't maintain
them and so you see women truly in terrible shape, who've had
their children removed, who are living in isolated places and
we just have to move with a little more resources and a little
more knowledge to try to do something about it and I understand
that the DEA is requesting $29 million for the Southwest border
and meth enforcement initiative. Is that correct?
Ms. Tandy. Thank you Senator. It is correct and that
consists of aircraft as well as technology as well as
surveillance enhancements, intelligence sharing, pieces also
form part of that budget request that are specifically directed
to methamphetamine and the trafficking, production, and
transportation of that into the United States.
Just to put into context, Senator, there have been a number
of improvements along the way with this shift that has really,
it's a recent shift of the production of methamphetamine
outside the country and even with that we have seized two
metric tons of methamphetamine just over the past year. That is
an increase of 129 percent in seizures of meth along the
Southwest border.
In addition to that we have a partnership now with Mexico
that frankly we have not enjoyed at this level at any time
previously, where we are conducting joint operations, as well
as targeting meth organizations. DEA has sent to Mexico eight
clan lab trucks to assist in the meth production operations
against these organizations, along with some of the other
enforcement operations that have already been addressed at this
hearing.
Senator Domenici. Well, I'm very much appreciative of all
of the effort that's taking place and I congratulate all of you
for the extra effort that meth has added to your very strong
and difficult task.
I'm also concerned about the Native Americans. I think that
we're just beginning to move into those areas where our Native
Americans live and finding, it should not have been a surprise,
but it was to many of us that meth has entered the Native
communities in abundance and it's because it is cheap and
quick. If they're looking for a fix, it's quick. If they're
looking for the results, it's not very quick. It's everlasting
it seems like, very hard to cure, but I want to thank you for
that and I know.
Mr. Sullivan, I don't know you, but I have gathered that
congratulatory remarks are in order and I would feel remiss if
I didn't join in saying the best of luck to you.
Madam Chairman and my good friend from Alabama, let me
choose to give you an observation and a prediction. I shouldn't
do this but, starting 5 years ago because of my work with the
mentally ill and we have accomplished a great number of things.
We're waiting now for the last bill to get passed on parity.
I've been privileged to work with some of the smartest
people in the United States on what's going wrong with the
mentally ill and the commission of serious crimes such as
murder by those who are mentally ill and have been committed to
the institutions for care and maintenance and I will predict
for you that the final result of this investigation will be
twofold.
The United States of America does not have enough centers
for taking care of people who are mentally ill who are assigned
to inpatient clinics by judges. We have a total lack of
facilities across this land because when we decided to go from
the places where we held the mentally ill we did have; no new
facilities were built as contemplated by then President
Kennedy.
Congress baulked and we built none essentially. We're
living in a kind of hand to foot creation of facilities. We got
policemen who house more mentally ill than do any facilities.
You know that as of this morning, more of the serious mentally
ill are in police stations and being assigned to police cells
than anyplace else in any other facilities.
So number one the report is going to say what's wrong with
America. We better build inpatient facilities on some kind of a
partnership with our States so we have a place to take care of
the mentally ill.
The second thing that's going to come out unequivocally is
that the States have not worked together to find a simple
approach to how you get people committed and how you keep them
committed until they get well. Right now they get out very
quickly. When they get out is that period of time that things
like this happen.
We're going to have to work on it and we won't escape it.
The States will be criticized heavily and this State in which
it happened will be looked at very much to see what they did
and didn't do, but eventually we're going to have to have a big
program to build facilities in conjunction with the States and
we're going to have to have some uniformity of in-house
commitment where people with serious mental illnesses will stay
in facilities rather than be released so quickly and so easily
because we don't want to exercise jurisdiction over sick people
but that's going to have to happen.
I regret this day as if it was 5 years ago when I started
reviewing the best article ever written was by the New York
Times where they reviewed some hundred plus cases of the type
I'm telling you about and they found that's what precisely was
happening that most of these murders were being done by sick
people who were released too early under the most grotesque of
facts.
The neighbors knew they were doing things crazy, wild, all
kinds of things to their relatives and nonetheless nobody could
do anything about it because they could not get the kind of
cooperation between law and those who wanted to help put them
away and that's going to change within the next 1\1/2\ or 2
years in my opinion big time and we'll be in the middle of it
because we can't leave it up solely to the States.
I look forward to presenting some more issues to talk about
to this subcommittee as we move ahead. Thank you very much.
Senator Mikulski. Senator we'd welcome that. First of all
we want to salute you because you have been a long time
advocate for mental health services. We note with affection
your special relationship you had with our lately departed
colleague, Senator Wellstone, on this issue. You continue to
carry the torch. You're exactly right. We need to be looking at
that, the whole Congress, in a variety of our subcommittees.
The second thing is that at this time, this is not the time
for finger pointing. This is the time for pin pointing what
happened here and how we can make sure that it never happens
again.
Each and every man and woman in this room has made a
difference but you know, and they make a difference every
single day in terms of protecting our country from again,
community security or national security, which you know if we
all worked together. You've made a difference, Senator Shelby,
all of us in this room. You know when we all work together we
can make change and that's why we wanted to hear you today.
We could talk so much again about your individual missions
of the agency, the particular budget needs that have been
raised by my colleagues and myself but know that we're on your
side. We want to help you be you, and we know you have a tough
job. You come in after everything goes wrong and whether it's
people trying to kill our troops in Afghanistan and Mr.
Sullivan, we know that you're there and in Iraq, where Ms.
Tandy, fighting drugs, we know you're there. You U.S. marshals
have to guard terrorists and give them the rights that they
wouldn't give anybody and so we're ready to work with you.
We also have discussed among ourselves, Ms. Tandy, that
there's certain elements of your testimony we think would be
better addressed in a closed or classified situation. We'll
notify you of that because we would like to pursue some of
these issues related to the international dealing of drugs as
well as what this means to our borders.
There's many questions we could ask today and they can go
to everything from gun control to border control to self
control, but I think we've covered our topics today unless the
panel has anything else. We will recess until next week with
the FBI.
Senator Shelby. Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shelby. Madam Chairman, I have a number of
questions for the panel that I'd like to submit for the record
and I would also, Madam Chairman, think it might be in order at
the proper time sometime to have Director Sullivan in a
classified hearing and that might cover some of the ground that
Senator Lautenberg had raised because what you're talking about
is very sensitive stuff in that area, are you not, Mr.
Sullivan? Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. My colleague raises a new point. In terms
of the Tiahrt, would that be better in a round table or would
it be better if, because there are classified things to talk
about.
Why don't you talk with us afterward about what is the best
mechanism because what we want to do is, we want to have the
right policies and we want to have those policies rightly
restored?
That's why we want to lift these freezing caps and get you
the people you need, you need new technologies because the bad
guys have new technologies and you've got to be, we've got to
help you be as fit for duty as you can.
Did you want to?
Senator Domenici. Yes, I just want to say I hope my
observations were not construed to be pin pointing.
Senator Mikulski. No, please, Senator, that's what I was
saying. No, you were pin pointing, you weren't finger pointing.
You were saying we got to get real about providing a continuing
of service for mental health.
As you know sir, my professional background is that of a
social worker and also my involvement whether it's been in
preventing domestic violence to worrying about our police
officers, I've got a well known and beloved police officer in
Maryland 3 weeks before retirement, a guy shot through the door
and killed him because he didn't take his meds.
So, I mean, no, no, your points were well taken. They were
right on the mark and we think that not only this subcommittee
but the entire Senate.
Senator Domenici. Oh, yes.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Michael J. Sullivan
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
tiahrt amendment
Question. Since 2004, the CJS Bill has included language known as
the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the sharing of ATF gun trace
information. The President's budget continues this language with a
modification.
Please explain the Tiahrt language.
Answer. Since 2003, ATF's annual appropriation has contained a
nondisclosure provision applicable to firearms trace data which is
referred to as the ``Tiahrt Amendment.'' This language prohibits ATF
from expending funds to disclose any of the contents of the Firearms
Tracing System (FTS) or any required Gun Control Act (GCA) information
to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in
connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or
prosecution, and then only such information pertaining to their
geographic jurisdiction.
As originally drafted, the Tiahrt Amendment codified ATF's
longstanding policy to provide access to firearms trace results to the
law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction over the trace request
while safeguarding those results from third parties. This policy, which
is supported by law enforcement organizations such as the Fraternal
Order of Police, recognizes ATF's interest in deciding how to utilize
and whether to disseminate its sensitive law enforcement information,
since premature and indiscriminate disclosure of firearms trace results
could compromise criminal investigations and potentially jeopardize the
safety of witnesses, informants, and law enforcement personnel.
Moreover, once law enforcement agencies receive trace data from ATF,
they remain free to share their firearms trace data with other law
enforcement entities, since such sharing is consistent with this
policy.
Question. How does the President's budget request modify the
language?
Answer. The revised language first clarifies and confirms that
firearms trace data may be shared with tribal and foreign law
enforcement agencies. This corrects an unintentional drafting error and
is wholly consistent with ATF's law enforcement mission and the express
purpose of the Gun Control Act.
The revised language also clarifies and confirms that firearms
trace data may be shared with Federal agencies for national security
purposes. In the Department's view, Congress never intended to prohibit
intelligence or security agencies from requesting firearms traces in
the course of anti-terrorist or homeland security investigations.
Sharing of information pursuant to such requests is wholly consistent
with the Department of Justice mission.
The revised language also removes the ``geographic jurisdiction''
limitation. The current appropriations restriction allows ATF to share
information ``as it pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law
enforcement agency requesting the information.'' This requirement was
removed to make clear that state and local law enforcement agencies
that receive trace information may lawfully disclose that information
to other law enforcement agencies within their investigative
discretion. Despite the removal of the ``geographic jurisdiction''
limitation in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget language, ATF
will continue its longstanding policy of disclosing firearms trace
results only to the law enforcement agency that requested ATF to trace
the firearm. This policy prevents any indiscriminate disclosure of
trace information that could jeopardize pending investigations and the
safety of witnesses, informants, and law enforcement personnel.
Finally, the revised language requires that law enforcement
agencies or personnel ``certify'' that the trace information is being
sought in connection with a bona fide criminal investigation or
prosecution. The Department of Justice's position is that this
requirement to ``certify'' does not impose any new responsibilities on
law enforcement. Under the Gun Control Act, ATF can only require that
federal firearms licensees respond to ATF with records for determining
the disposition of firearms (i.e. ``trace information'') when ATF's
request is connected to a legitimate law enforcement investigation. As
a result, there has always been a requirement that local law
enforcement trace requests to ATF also be connected to a legitimate law
enforcement investigation. The current trace request form, which
requires the requesting agency to enter an NCIC crime code, is already
a form of certification that satisfies the requirement in the fiscal
year 2008 budget request. If a law enforcement officer presently
falsifies information on the trace data request form, he could be
subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 in the same manner as
others who violate the statute by lying on a federal form. That is true
independent of the appropriations language.
Question. As I understand the President's proposal--it is very
detailed permanent authorizing language including--is that correct?
Answer. The proposal does contain ``language of futurity'' which
applies to the fiscal year in question and thereafter. Such language of
futurity has also appeared in previous iterations of the Tiahrt
Amendment.
Question. Is the Administration working with the authorizing
committees on this language?
Answer. The Department of Justice is not currently, but would be
pleased to work with the authorizing committees on this language.
federal firearms licensees
Question. What are the tools available to put corrupt gun dealers
out of business?
Answer. Under 18 U.S.C. 923(e), ATF has the authority to revoke a
Federal firearms license if a dealer commits a willful violation of the
Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). ATF conducts FFL inspections to verify
that FFLs are complying with the provisions of the GCA and its
implementing regulations, and to detect and prevent the diversion of
firearms from legal to illegal commerce. ATF also investigates any
substantive information regarding illegal activity by a Federal
firearms licensee (FFL), and may recommend criminal prosecution for
willful violations of the GCA.
Question. Isn't suing them an effective way of shutting them down?
Answer. Suing an FFL is not an option available to ATF nor do we
think it would be an effective tool for overseeing and regulating the
firearms industry. ATF meets its statutory and regulatory obligations
through criminal investigation of FFLs that commit illegal acts and
through its regulatory inspection program. Therefore, an FFL that is
not meeting its statutory and regulatory obligations could be ``shut
down'' through criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution and
through an administrative remedy, such as license revocation.
Question. What is ATF doing to put these gun dealers who sell
illegal guns out of business?
Answer. ATF is committed to enforcing the Federal firearms laws as
enacted by Congress. As allowed under the GCA, ATF revokes Federal
firearms licenses for willful violations of the Act. Over the past
several years, there has been an increase in license revocations,
partially due to additional training for field managers, improved
guidelines for conducting inspections, and better utilization of
information to identify which licensees should be inspected. ATF
typically revokes licenses where the FFL has willfully and repeatedly
failed to account for firearms or to ensure buyer eligibility. In
addition to these administrative actions, under certain circumstances,
ATF may investigate firearms dealers for criminal violations of the
GCA.
ATF works on a daily basis to assist FFLs in their compliance
obligations. The vast majority of inspections in which licensees are
cited for violations do not result in revocation. In fact, the
inspection process usually results in greater compliance and fewer
violations during subsequent inspections. Overall, ATF revokes only a
small percentage of FFLs where violations are found. In 2006, ATF
revoked 115 licenses out of 7,000 inspected (1.4 percent) and a
licensee population of approximately 108,000. The Department is
currently developing a legislative proposal, the Violent Crime and
Anti-terrorism bill, which proposes graduated sanctions for use against
FFLs that are in violation of certain GCA provisions, but which do not
rise to the level of license revocation. ATF believes that this will
also promote greater FFL accountability and compliance.
A review of the most current data in our case management systems
indicates that the following number of criminal charges were brought
against FFLs since fiscal year 2000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2000..................................................... 14
2001..................................................... 17
2002..................................................... 20
2003..................................................... 33
2004..................................................... 42
2005..................................................... 31
2006..................................................... 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citations: 18 U.S.C. 1001; 18 U.S.C. (2); 18 U.S.C. 47; 18 U.S.C.
111; 18 U.S.C. 371; 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(1); 18 U.S.C. 844(i); 18 U.S.C.
922(a)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5); 18 U.S.C.
922(a)(6); 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3); 18 U.S.C.
922(d)(1); 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3); 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(5)(B); 18 U.S.C.
922(d)(9); 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3); 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(8); 18 U.S.C. 922(j); 18 U.S.C. 922(k); 18 U.S.C. 922(l); 18
U.S.C. 922(m); 18 U.S.C. 922(o); 18 U.S.C. 922(s); 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(1);
18 U.S.C. 922(w)(1); 18 U.S.C. 924 (a)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 924(c); 18
U.S.C. 1341; 18 U.S.C. 1343; 18 U.S.C. 1503; 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1); 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. 5861(d); 26 U.S.C. 5861(e); 26 U.S.C.
5861(f); 26 U.S.C. 5861(g); 26 U.S.C. 7206;
Question. Does ATF have all the resources it needs to go after
these corrupt gun dealers?
Answer. After the implementation of the Safe Explosives Act in
2002, ATF increased its total number of field IOIs from 420 to 650
(fiscal year 2004-2005), and currently ATF has 594 IOIs on board. The
Safe Explosives Act requires that ATF inspect each explosives industry
member at least once every three years. This requirement places a
significant demand on ATF's inspection force and it requires ATF to use
flexibility in adjusting the total number of inspector hours dedicated
to the firearms industry. ATF regularly reviews its programs and
results to reduce inefficiency and increase effectiveness. This process
includes the evaluation of all of our inspection procedures. In this
way, ineffective procedures can be identified, and ATF's inspection
efficiency is maximized.
Recall inspections of FFLs have shown a resulting increase in
compliance for those licensees who have previously been inspected. The
increased compliance has resulted in fewer violations and license
revocations. Fiscal year 2006 recall inspections resulted in an
increased compliance rate of 91 percent for inventory discrepancies and
an increased compliance rate for 64 percent for total violations.
Question. What are the statistics on the number of rogue dealers
selling illegal guns to criminals?
Answer. A review of current data in our case management systems
indicates that in fiscal year 2006, 32 gun dealers had criminal charges
brought against them for violating Federal gun laws. In addition, 115
licensees had their FFL revoked through the regulatory inspection
process. It is important to note that the revocation of a FFL is not
indicative of criminal activity. The graduated sanctions for FFLs
proposed in the Department's draft ``Crime bill'' will help address
this issue and revocations will continue to be reserved for the worst
licensee violations. Below is a chart that shows the number of
revocations for the past several years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFLs Revoked
Year National
Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.................................................... 54
2005.................................................... 104
2006.................................................... 115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
funding shortfall
Question. Your fiscal year 2008 budget requests were developed long
before passage of the Joint Resolution.
Can each of you tell this Committee if the 2008 budget request will
meet your current operating needs? If not, can you tell the Committee
if the Department has begun to engage in any cost savings to mitigate
any negative impacts from 2007 to 2008?
Answer. ATF supports the fiscal year 2008 President's budget
request that is currently pending approval with Congress. The
President's request was the result of an extensive deliberative process
and strongly supports ATF's and the Department of Justice's mission to
reduce violence and protect our citizens.
Question. Do you expect to submit a budget amendment to ensure that
your critical law enforcement operations are not negatively affected by
any funding shortfall in your 2008 request?
Answer. No.
gangs and gun trafficking
Question. Mr. Sullivan, in 2006 the ATF referred more gang related
defendants for prosecution than any other Federal law enforcement
agency.
Can you tell us more about ATF's success in going after gangs?
Answer. ATF has approximately 2,000 special agents dedicated
exclusively to investigating violent crime and gangs. In fiscal year
2006, ATF initiated 2,023 gang related cases. This represents an
increase of 157 percent from 2002. Additionally in fiscal year 2006,
1,680 defendants in gang related cases initiated by ATF were convicted,
an increase of 289 percent from fiscal year 2002. In total, ATF has
referred more than 10,000 gang members for prosecution between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006.
ATF has long been involved in investigations of groups such as the
Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), organized criminal Asian gangs, violent white
supremacists, and outlaw motorcycle organizations such as the Hell's
Angels and the Banditos. For example, an ATF-Baltimore investigation
led to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) charges
in a MS-13 gang case against 23 subjects who have been arrested and
indicted. The April 2006 indictment charged numerous RICO predicate
acts including seven homicides and numerous shootings, beatings, and
other violent crimes in aid of racketeering. ATF coordinates efforts of
Federal, State and local law enforcement working through the Regional
Anti-Gang Enforcement Task Force to combat violent Latino gangs in
Maryland's Prince George and Montgomery Counties. Twenty-three MS-13
gang members have been charged in a 36 count federal indictment
including numerous shootings and other assaults, kidnapping, seven
homicides, kidnapping, witness intimidation and other violent crimes.
In January 2007, 13 members of the MS-13 street gang were arrested
and indicted following a year-long joint investigation conducted by ATF
and the Nashville Metropolitan Police Department. During the
investigation, information was developed linking Nashville-based MS-13
members and associates with seven shootings, three alleged murders,
several planned murders, threats and intimidation, and other violent
crimes that occurred in 2006. The defendants were indicted on
racketeering conspiracy charges. If convicted, the defendants face a
maximum penalty of life in prison on the RICO conspiracy charges.
Question. What type of operational intelligence does ATF use to go
after these criminals?
Answer. ATF partners with other Federal law enforcement agencies
and State and local law enforcement to investigate the most egregious
violent criminals and violent criminal organizations. ATF special
agents work with local police to try and identify the ``worst of the
worst'' gang members and target these violent offenders first--using
undercover operations, surveillance, wiretaps, and the controlled
purchase of drugs, guns, explosives, and other contraband to identify
and attack the gang's hierarchy. For example, in Chicago, ATF has used
Title III wire taps in numerous gang investigations and recently
completed a RICO case against the Aurora Insane Deuce gang. This case
has been described by personnel at the U.S. Attorneys Office in Chicago
as the template for future RICO gang investigations.
ATF is also an active participant in the National Gang Targeting,
Enforcement and Coordination Center (GangTECC), which is a DOJ-led task
force with a mission to disrupt and dismantle the most violent gangs in
the United States in the interest of national security, border
protection, and public safety. Three ATF special agents, including one
who is serving as the first Deputy Director, are supporting GangTECC
activities. GangTECC serves as a central coordinating center for multi-
jurisdictional gang investigations involving Federal law enforcement
agencies.
ATF's 23 Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs) provide intelligence
services and support to ATF field offices throughout the United States.
These Field Intelligence Groups are comprised of Special Agents,
Intelligence Research Specialists, and Investigative Analysts who
provide specialized support by producing crucial tactical and strategic
intelligence products and other analytical services. FIGs provide
investigative leads using gun trace data, multiple firearms sales, and
firearms theft reports. Field Intelligence Groups also compare and
share Tactical Intelligence collected in support of investigations with
OSII IRS and National Gang Intelligence Center staff to help build on
Strategic Intelligence that benefits gang investigations across the
United States. They also serve as the conduit of information between
field personnel assigned to the local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)
and ATF.
national center for explosives training and research--redstone
Question. ATF now has $10 million of the more than $40 million
necessary to build a permanent site for the National Center for
Explosives Training and Research NCETR (pronounced N-seed-R).
Can you tell us the status of this project?
Answer. ATF has been working closely with the Redstone Department
of Public Works and the Army Corp of Engineers on this project. An
Exhibit 300 (Capital Asset Plan and Business Case Summary) for the
NCETR project has been completed and submitted via the electronic
Capital Planning and Investment Control (e-CPIC) system. ATF is
finalizing the design for the National Center for Explosives Training
and Research (NCETR) with the Army Corps of Engineers and is
anticipating a final product in early July. Additionally, ATF is
awaiting an environmental assessment to be completed by Redstone
Arsenal. Once the environmental assessment is complete, ATF will begin
construction of an explosives range on the south end of the base, as
plans for the range have been completed. Upon completion, ATF will
begin explosives training courses at Redstone.
Question. Once completed what will this training center provide to
the ATF that does not exist today?
Answer. ATF is tasked with being the lead Federal agency on
explosives incidents and has developed expertise and fostered a strong
reputation on such matters. The demands placed upon ATF for Federal,
State, local, international and military training and research are
many. NCETR will ensure that we meet those demands.
NCETR will provide a physical infrastructure for the experts in the
explosives field to conduct advanced research, exploit intelligence
related to explosives and improvised explosives devices, and train in
the most advanced techniques to deter and prevent the criminal misuse
of explosives. The number and types of classrooms and the range space
at NCETR will allow ATF to substantially increase its training
capacity. For instance, at our current facility we are generally
limited to detonating explosives of 50 pounds or less. However, the
future facility at Redstone will allow us to detonate a 500 pound
explosive, which is equivalent to a vehicle bomb. This would give us
the ability to train for real world applications. In addition, NCETR
will provide a location to leverage our partnerships on a full time
basis for training and research opportunities.
Furthermore, this facility will provide the explosives community in
law enforcement and DOD something that does not exist today. Current
Federal resources primarily address render safe capabilities and only
cover approximately 20 percent of the explosives field. NCETR will
provide the venue and capacity to impact the other 80 percent of the
explosives field, including advanced training, research, intelligence
and investigations. ATF is uniquely positioned, as a result of its
broad explosives related expertise, to manage and deliver comprehensive
and progressive training programs with offerings of introductory,
advanced, and specialized fire and explosives training programs to a
diverse audience of domestic, military and international students.
These students comprise a broad spectrum of learners, from first
responders to prosecutors. The NCETR facility will be the first of its
kind in size and scope related to explosives training.
Question. Do you believe this center will add to ATF's operational
expertise?
Answer. Yes. As stated above, this facility will provide ATF with
the opportunity to advance our explosives expertise through research
partnerships, and share the results of that research with our law
enforcement and military partners.
NCETR, through collaboration, will further our understanding of
explosives scenes to train crime scene personnel to identify, collect
and process evidence necessary for a conviction of a suspected
terrorist or other crime suspect. The ATF United States Bomb Data
Center (USBDC), a nationwide and international database at the
forefront of data collection and dissemination, also will be located at
Huntsville. Finally, through our regulatory authorities, ATF will share
its expertise with State and local entities to ensure consistency in
reporting and gathering data.
explosives
Question. Director Sullivan your agency's fiscal year 2008 budget
request includes $10 million to support ATF's arson and explosives
programs.
Answer. The $10 million in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget
for the Explosives User Fee Offset is an increase that targets ATF's
highest priorities which include Explosives Enforcement Activity,
Explosive Industry Operations, Canine Enforcement Activity and Safe
Explosives Act implementation.
Question. Can you tell us more about ATF's role in enforcing
Federal laws as they relate to destructive devices, explosives and
arson and how this request will assist your agency in its critical
mission requirements?
Answer. ATF is the primary Federal agency responsible for
administering and enforcing the regulatory and criminal provisions of
the Federal laws pertaining to explosives, bombs and other destructive
devices, and arson. ATF's mission includes deterring and investigating
violations relating to destructive devices, explosives and arson. ATF
is in a unique position to not only investigate arson and explosives
related crimes and regulate commerce in explosives but also to provide
intelligence and training to other law enforcement partners on these
critical matters.
Since 1978, ATF has investigated more than 28,000 incidents
involving explosives. Since 1978, ATF has investigated 79,161 arson and
explosives incidents. In fiscal year 2006, ATF initiated 4,060 arson
and explosives investigations, of which 2,222 were explosives cases.
These cases involved the investigation of over 13,000 bombings and
15,000 incidents involving recovered explosives, including homemade
explosives and improvised explosives devices. ATF initiated over 3,500
investigations concerning thefts of explosives and explosives materials
and has conducted thousands of regulatory inspections of licensed
explosives dealers and manufactures. ATF personnel have also been
involved in virtually every bombing incident in the United States
including the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing; the UNABOMB
investigation; the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
bombing; and the Centennial Park Bombing.
Our Fire Research Laboratory (FRL) provides state-of-the-art
forensic fire science expertise to aid fire investigations. The FRL has
the capability of simulating fire scenarios approaching a quarter-acre
in size, to scale, under controlled conditions, which allows for
detailed analysis. It is the only such facility in the United States
dedicated to providing case support in fire investigations using
forensic fire science.
All arson and explosives incident databases within the Department
of Justice have been consolidated by ATF into the Bomb Arson Tracking
System (BATS) which now has over 42,000 records from over 700 agencies
and is accessible to Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies.
In addition to its use as an incident database, BATS serves as a case
management system by arson and explosives incident investigators at all
levels of government.
This budget request will ensure that the most advanced training
opportunities will continue to be offered to all military and law
enforcement agencies in the United States. Currently, several Federal
entities, including the Hazardous Devices School (HDS) operated by the
United States Army on behalf of the FBI, offer explosives related
courses. However, these training facilities offer curricula that are
narrowly focused along specific occupational requirements. For example,
the HDS trains bomb technicians exclusively on basic electronics and
how to render safe an explosive device. The NCETR training model will
compliment these existing facilities through the delivery of training
programs not available elsewhere and through applied research projects
that will enhance the programs offered at other existing facilities.
ATF provides specialized resources to train and assist other
Federal, State, local and foreign law enforcement agencies in fire and
explosives investigation, as well as explosives disposal. These
training programs address all aspects of fire and explosives
investigations including statutory and regulatory requirements, first
responders, bomb technicians, post-blast reconstruction and
investigation, forensic analysis, improvised explosives mixtures, IED
electronics, explosives disposal, chemistry, and courtroom techniques.
ATF has also partnered with DOD's Joint IED Defeat Organization to
produce the Military Post Blast Investigation course provided to
military EOD personnel preparing for deployment to combat. Currently,
DOD funds ATF's detailee stationed at JIEDDO in Fort Irwin, California.
DOD provides housing and per diem and finances all travel expenses
related to JIEDDO training. ATF currently has one Special Agent
Certified Explosives Specialist (SACES) on a not to exceed 1 year
detail to Fort Irwin. Subsequent to the 1 year assignment, ATF will
either PCS or detail another SACES to Fort Irwin. It is anticipated
that DOD JIEDDO will fund any PCS costs, per the DOD/ATF MOU.
ATF inspects the explosives industry to ensure compliance with
storage, safety and security related requirements of federal law. ATF's
relationship with the explosives industry also provides unique
investigatory and technology resources to the Agency. ATF investigators
are ideally positioned to thwart criminal activity at every level from
the theft or illegal purchase of explosives to the interdiction and
neutralization of these explosives.
With this budget request, ATF will continue to utilize its
expertise to help the explosives industry comply with federal law,
prevent the unlawful acquisition of explosives, and promote industry
and law enforcement partnerships to reduce public safety risks. ATF
will also continue to draw upon its expertise in fire and explosives
investigations to assist other Federal, State, local and foreign law
enforcement agencies with training and investigations.
Question. ATF trains canines to not only detect explosives but also
to assist in the detection of accelerants used to start fires. Can you
tell us more about the arson and explosives canine program?
Answer. ATF trains accelerant detection canines for State and local
fire departments, police departments, and State fire marshal's offices.
Currently, there are 85 active accelerant detection teams in the United
States. These canine teams are utilized in fire investigations to help
identify potential points of origin started by ignitable liquids. Each
year in the United States, deaths, injuries, and millions of dollars of
property damage are caused by intentionally set fires. ATF-certified
accelerant canines are an essential tool in detecting minute traces of
substances which have been used to start fires. Accelerant detection
canines also serve as a critical part of ATF's National Response Teams.
These highly-trained canines serve side by side with trained fire
investigators and forensic chemists to help solve some of the nation's
costliest and deadliest arsons.
ATF's canine programs produce extremely reliable, mobile, accurate,
and durable explosives and accelerant detection tools, capable of
assisting law enforcement and fire investigators with the escalating
threat faced by communities worldwide. ATF has trained 519 explosives
detection canines and 113 accelerant detection canines.
In 1997, ATF began training explosives detection canine teams for
State, local, and other Federal agencies. As of April 30, 2007, there
are 120 active ATF-certified explosives detection canine teams working
throughout the United States. Thirty-four of these teams include ATF
special agent canine handlers, and 86 are explosives detection canine
teams for other federal, State, and local agencies. ATF also trains and
provides explosives detection canines for foreign countries, in
conjunction with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Anti-Terrorism
Assistance, to protect U.S. citizens and interests abroad. To date, ATF
has trained 339 explosives detection canines for the following 17
countries: Israel, Italy, Argentina, Cyprus, Greece, Chili, Egypt,
Jordan, Malaysia, Australia, The Czech Republic, Poland, South Africa,
Thailand, Bahrain, Qatar, and Mexico.
______
Questions Submitted to Karen P. Tandy
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
dea state and local assistance
Question. The Justice Department's Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program (``Byrne
grants'') helps state and local governments address the law enforcement
needs in their own communities. Historically, a large share of this
grant funding has targeted investigating and prosecuting major drug
dealers, as well as fostering multi-state operations to support
national efforts to reduce drug crimes.
Since fiscal year 2002, funding for justice assistance programs in
the Justice Department has fallen dramatically from $2.2 billion to
$800 million--a cut of more than 63 percent. While reductions in crime
and drug use rates over the past 10 years have been significant, they
have leveled off in the past several years and, in some instances, have
even begun to creep higher. The majority of the reductions occurred
when state and local law enforcement assistance accounts were funded at
high levels.
State and local law enforcement have always been the lynchpins of
community safety. Are you concerned that reducing federal involvement
in Byrne assistance grants to state and local entities will lead to
less effective law enforcement?
Answer. Despite the reduction, we will continue to work side-by-
side with State and local law enforcement through our domestic offices
and task forces. We will also continue to share intelligence with and
provide training to our State and local partners.
There are two narcotics task forces in the State of Vermont--the
Vermont State Police Task Force and the DEA Task Force. The Vermont
State Police Task Force is made up of three squads--Southern,
Northeast, and Northwest. It is staffed as follows:
--2 State Trooper positions funded by the State of Vermont;
--6 State Trooper positions funded by the federal Meth Grant;
--3 State Trooper positions funded by the Byrne Grant;
--4 local Police positions funded by the Byrne Grant;
--2 local Police positions funded by the federal Meth Grant; and
--3 local Police positions funded by the State of Vermont.
The DEA Task Force is located in the Northwest part of Vermont. It
includes two HIDTA positions and is staffed as follows:
--6 DEA Special Agents;
--1 Burlington Police Detective;
--1 State Trooper (included in the above 20 positions);
--1 Essex County Sheriff's Deputy;
--1 Lamoille County Sheriff's Deputy; and
--1 Border Patrol Agent.
Although more difficult, DEA will seek to maintain the necessary
coverage throughout the State and service the needs of the communities
as drug cases expand. In a state such as Vermont, DEA relies heavily on
State and local counterparts for assistance, therefore a reduction in
the Byrne Grant positions will likely impact State and local
participation. However, DEA has a strong partnership with State and
local law enforcement and these relationships will work to service the
communities of Vermont with or without the positions. State and local
law enforcement organizations have always demonstrated a commitment to
working with DEA, and this will not change.
DEA will continue work with its task force and the remaining
Vermont State Police Task Force positions. Currently, the Southern
Vermont State Police Task Force conducts narcotic investigations in the
Southern part of the state. The work of this task force has been
extremely helpful to DEA because drug trafficking organizations come
from Massachusetts or New York, conduct business in Southern Vermont,
and then return to their originating states. Once these individuals
have been identified, the U.S. Attorney's office becomes involved,
along with DEA, and the investigation continues back into the source
States resulting in the indictments of these individuals and groups
impacting Vermont.
The Northeast Vermont State Police Task Force conducts
investigations along the I-91 corridor and they also coordinate with
the U.S. Attorney's office and with DEA on apprehending the cross state
and cross Canadian border drug traffickers. The Northwest State Police
Task Force conducts investigations within the same immediate area as
the DEA Task Force. When investigations overlap the two task forces are
adept at coordinating, however they seldom cross paths, demonstrating
the amount of work to be done in the area.
Question. In Vermont, state and local entities have long
collaborated with the national government in fighting drugs. How can
state and local anti-drug entities partner with DEA to curb drug
trafficking when your fiscal year 2008 budget request reduces federal
assistance to states in this area?
Answer. Despite the elimination of the MET program in fiscal year
2008, DEA will continue to work side-by-side with our State and local
law enforcement partners by sharing intelligence, providing training,
and participating in task forces. DEA assists State and local law
enforcement in many ways, for example:
--DEA's EPIC Open Connectivity Project provides web-based access to
approximately 1,800 Federal, State, and local partners on an
annual basis. Users can query and access law enforcement data
maintained by EPIC.
--In fiscal year 2006, DEA shared $274 million in State and local
proceeds with State and local law enforcement, a 25 percent
increase over the $219 million shared in fiscal year 2005,
including a 40 percent increase in the funds shared with
Sheriffs. This level of sharing is expected to continue.
--In fiscal year 2006, DEA trained over 41,000 S&L officers,
including over 1,000 in meth lab clean up and training.
--By the end of 2008, DEA plans to complete a clandestine laboratory
training facility to better train more State and local
officers.
DEA will also continue to support State and local law enforcement
through our domestic offices and task forces. DEA leads over 200 State
and local task forces, including over 1,600 DEA Special Agents and over
2,100 State and local task force officers, all of whom are dedicated
full time to address drug trafficking, including trafficking in our
local communities.
prescription drug abuse
Question. In December 2006, the University of Michigan released a
national survey, called ``Monitoring the Future''--the largest and most
in-depth survey of youth drug use in the nation measuring drug, alcohol
and cigarette use and related attitudes among teenagers. The study
revealed, among other things, that there was a thirty percent increase
in the use of the prescription drug OxyContin last year. I understand
that in April of 2001 the DEA implemented a comprehensive National
Action Plan to reduce the diversion and abuse of OxyContin.
How many DEA investigations and arrests have led to successful
prosecutions in OxyContin cases since 2001?
From April 2001, when the OxyContin National Action Plan was
implemented, to the end of fiscal year 2006, DEA initiated 970
OxyContin (both brand name and generic) investigations and made 912
OxyContin-related arrests. Though DEA databases do not comprehensively
track prosecutions, the majority of DEA arrests result in successful
prosecutions. The following are two examples:
--On July 10, 2006, Thomas Merrill, MD was sentenced in the Northern
District of Florida in Pensacola, to life imprisonment on six
counts of over-prescribing OxyContin and other controlled
pharmaceuticals resulting in the deaths of five individuals. He
was also sentenced to concurrent twenty, ten, and five year
terms of imprisonment on an additional 92 counts including wire
fraud and defrauding health care benefits programs.
--On September 1, 2004, Fred J. Williams, MD was sentenced in the
Northern District of Florida to life imprisonment following
conviction on 94 counts of drug offenses arising out of his
illegal dispensing of OxyContin. Williams was writing
prescriptions for known drug abusers using several variations
of a patient's name in an apparent attempt to avoid attracting
attention at local pharmacies. Williams wrote over 600
prescriptions to 150 people, none of whom were identified as
patients. At the time of sentencing, the judge admonished Dr.
Williams for wreaking havoc on the community and destroying
lives.
Question. In 2002, the Justice Department Inspector General found
that despite the widespread problem of controlled pharmaceutical
diversion and abuse, ``the DEA had been slow to commit resources to
address this problem.'' In a July 2006 follow up review, the Inspector
General found that ``from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005, the DEA
increased the percentage of time that diversion investigators spent
investigating Internet diversion from 3 percent to 11 percent.''
What percentage of time has DEA diversion investigators spent
investigating Internet diversion from fiscal year 2005 to the present?
Answer. Since the 2002 OIG report, DEA has worked diligently to
address the growing problem of pharmaceutical drug abuse in the United
States. DEA attempts to leverage all of its resources to address this
serious problem. In addition to having Diversion Investigators conduct
Internet and other types of diversion cases, Special Agents,
Intelligence Analysts, and Task Force Officers routinely work on these
types of investigations. DEA also prides itself in working shoulder-to-
shoulder with our state and local counterparts on all investigations
including diversion investigations.
In fiscal year 2005, 11.4 percent of Diversion Investigator (DI)
work hours were spent on Internet cases. During the first half of
fiscal year 2007, 16.8 percent of DI work hours were spent on Internet
cases, an increase of 47 percent over fiscal year 2005.
In addition to investigative work, DEA has devoted significant
resources to targeting efforts using ARCOS and SearchPoint, taking
administrative action, such as Immediate Suspensions and Show Cause
Orders, on pharmaceutical wholesalers and distributors found to be
supplying Internet pharmacies. Further, DEA is also working closely
with legitimate Internet-related businesses, such as credit card
companies, express parcel carriers, and Internet Service Providers, to
solicit their cooperation in shutting down illegal Internet pharmacies.
Question. In its 2006 report, the Inspector General examined
several investigative tools that are part of DEA's overall operational
strategy, including the Online Investigations Project (OIP), telephone
and online hotlines, undercover equipment, and training in conducting
Internet diversion investigations. The Inspector General found that
although the OIP has become a valuable investigative tool, ``it cannot
automatically identify web sites with the highest volume of suspect
pharmaceutical sales as originally intended.''
Are you concerned that, contrary to the original intent of OIP, DEA
may not possess the resources or capacity to identify rogue online
pharmacies with the highest volume of suspect sales?
Answer. Although the OIP has not provided DEA the originally
intended capabilities to proactively search the Internet and identify
major violators, it is used daily to provide background information on
suspect websites. In addition, DEA analysts and diversion investigators
have demonstrated a limited capability to produce more detailed link
analyses of groups of related websites.
DEA has recognized and acted upon the continuing requirement to
proactively and efficiently search the Internet and identify illicit
online pharmacies that are selling the greatest amounts of controlled
pharmaceuticals. To this end, DEA in March of this year initiated a
contract with an Internet search and analysis company to provide this
capability. Although the identity of this company cannot be included in
this response for reasons of investigative confidentiality, the company
has over the past two years developed an excellent reputation providing
Internet search and analysis services to leading credit card companies,
Internet companies, and major banks for the purpose of enforcing
company due diligence responsibilities in the field of Internet
pharmaceutical sales, as well as several other areas of illegal
commerce over the Internet. In particular, the company has been the
leading provider of Internet search and analysis services to a
coalition of financial companies working closely with the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children to identify and refer for law
enforcement investigation Internet purveyors of child pornography--a
more difficult Internet investigative challenge but also one that
shares significant common traits with illicit Internet sales of
controlled pharmaceuticals.
This contract for Internet search and analysis services includes a
four-month initial performance period with options for an additional
eight months as well as a subsequent year. The contractor recently
provided DEA an initial list of six prospective website targets along
with an initial list of affiliated websites. These targets have already
been evaluated by our Special Operations Division and forwarded to
several DEA Field Divisions. Significantly, this contract requires, and
the contractor has expressed confidence in its ability to deliver,
identification of the leading Internet controlled pharmaceutical
trafficking networks. This includes all associated payment websites,
affiliate or portal websites, registration, web hosting, and server
identifications, as well as key financial links including payment
processors and merchant banks that provide website operators access to
major credit card networks. If successful, this contract by March of
2008 will have conclusively identified and mapped out the Internet
``footprint'' of the largest Internet controlled pharmaceutical
trafficking organizations and DEA will have initiated investigations
against those same organizations.
Question. Do you believe that a DEA or a nongovernmental
organization should regularly search the Internet to identify these
websites and other locations that offer to sell controlled substances
without a prescription?
It is vital that the DEA and relevant private sector companies work
together to proactively search the Internet to identify websites that
are illegally selling controlled pharmaceuticals. Because the Internet
is constantly changing, the search for illicit websites is inherently
complex and must be undertaken on a proactive basis, not reactive.
Question. Since 2002, the DEA has established telephone and online
hotlines for reporting suspicious Internet pharmacies. The Inspector
General's 2006 report found that ``these hotlines have yielded few
leads that resulted in diversion investigations.'' Equally troubling,
the Inspector General found that while the DEA has started to provide
undercover equipment to its diversion groups, ``as of May 2006 most
diversion groups still did not have this equipment.''
Are you concerned that DEA lacks the resources to ensure that its
intelligence, technological, and investigative tools operate
effectively?
Answer. DEA is working hard to integrate and optimize its
intelligence, technology, and investigative resources for Internet
pharmaceutical investigations. The technological and analytical
challenges posed by Internet pharmaceutical investigations are many and
complex, and have required DEA to reach out to the private sector for
Internet expertise for search, analysis, and training support.
Moreover, much of the available intelligence for identifying and
targeting violators resides in the private sector among key industry
groups whose services are used by online traffickers of controlled
pharmaceuticals. This has placed a premium on fostering effective
working relationships with leading Internet, financial, and parcel
delivery companies. In this time of constrained budgets, both manpower
and funding limitations directly impact Internet investigations, which
require unusually large commitments of these resources.
DEA has provided all field divisions with undercover credit card
accounts in order to make online purchases of controlled
pharmaceuticals for use as evidence in Internet investigations. DEA has
also deployed undercover Internet workstations to all domestic field
divisions.
Question. What percentage of diversion investigators receive
specialized training that can prove useful for conducting Internet
investigations?
Answer. As of March 1, 2007, 369 of the 520 (71 percent) on-board
Diversion Investigators have completed Internet training conducted by
DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD). Additional training classes
have been scheduled during the remainder of fiscal year 2007. DEA is
also developing an Advanced Internet Investigations course that is
scheduled to begin in August of 2007. DEA has also added two Financial
Techniques courses into the fiscal year 2007 training schedule that is
designed to provide employees with the skills and knowledge to enhance
their investigative skills to conduct financial investigations. DEA
will also provide Diversion Investigators with courses on Complex
Conspiracy Investigations.
Question. I am concerned that curbing Internet prescription drug
abuse may take collaboration between law enforcement and private sector
companies (i.e., credit card companies, payment systems, Internet
Service Providers, common carriers, etc.)
What current methods of collaboration with private sector entities
does DEA use to combat rogue online pharmacies?
Answer. For the past two years, DEA has actively developed
relationships with leading financial, Internet, and express parcel
delivery companies whose services are used by Internet controlled
pharmaceutical trafficking organizations. The purpose of this outreach
has been threefold: (1) to raise awareness of the growing problem of
pharmaceutical diversion via the Internet; (2) to elicit voluntary
efforts to restrict legitimate business services from being used by
illicit Internet controlled pharmaceutical traffickers; and (3) to
identify potential sources of data maintained by businesses that may
aid in targeting enforcement efforts against the largest illicit
Internet drug trafficking organizations.
These relationships provide an opportunity for government and the
private sector to reach a better understanding of relevant federal laws
and explore areas of cooperation and voluntary industry action to curb
the expanding illicit sale of controlled pharmaceuticals over the
Internet. The level of cooperation enjoyed by DEA with the various
industries involved with Internet pharmacies is excellent. They
understand the gravity of the problem and have been extremely
cooperative with DEA's inquiries. These relationships are maturing even
further around a systematic industry-based Internet search and analysis
effort that will incorporate selected data inputs from key Internet,
financial, and parcel carrier companies to proactively identify and
target the largest Internet controlled pharmaceutical trafficking
organizations. A coalition of leading financial companies is
spearheading this effort.
Question. Information sharing between private sector entities and
the DEA may be critical to preventing online prescription drug abuse.
While the number of occasions may be limited, the willingness for
private sector entities to share information with DEA about locations
to sell pharmaceuticals illegally and to act upon them may be
diminished by the threat of law suits.
Do you think that the private sector can play an important role in
assisting DEA reduce online drug abuse?
Answer. Yes. Private sector involvement is critical for two
reasons. First, the private sector--most especially the Internet,
financial, and express parcel delivery companies whose services are
used by Internet traffickers of controlled pharmaceuticals--must
establish rigorous business practices to preclude this illicit use of
their services and then rigorously enforce those standards through
internal fraud prevention efforts. Second, these same companies, which
all rely intensively upon the Internet for their business, possess
invaluable data needed to proactively identify, target, and investigate
violators.
Question. Do you support immunity from civil or criminal action for
private sector entities that mistakenly identify websites in good
faith? And do you support immunity from civil or criminal actions for
private sector entities that refuse to do business with any
organization mistakenly identified in good faith as offering to
illegally sell a controlled substance?
Answer. Yes, DEA would support legislation that furthers the
ability of private sector companies to deny services to other companies
involved in suspect activities, while minimizing liability for any
mistaken actions made in good faith. It is vital that relevant
Internet, financial, and parcel delivery companies aggressively police
their own operations in this area of illegal commerce. This support
from the private sector strengthens DEA's overall enforcement strategy.
Private sector entities are acutely aware of their legal liability for
denying services to suspect websites whose operators have not been
legally convicted. For example, MasterCard has in the past two years
denied services to several hundred suspect pharmaceutical website
operators working through the merchant banks that issued the credit
card retail accounts. FedEx suspended truck deliveries of suspect
packages containing pharmaceuticals within portions of eastern Kentucky
when it became apparent that illicit Internet sales of controlled
pharmaceuticals had reached epidemic proportions in that part of the
state. In general, businesses have the legal authority to suspend their
services to clients that violate internal business practices codified
in their contracts with clients.
cocaine
Question. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has expressed concerns
about the amount of low-level drug offenders being dealt with
excessively, particularly in the area of crack cocaine. In May 2002,
the Commission found that in fiscal year 2000, 73 percent of all
federal crack convictions were brought against low-level offenders, and
only 6.1 percent of all federal crack convictions were brought against
high-level dealers in crack cocaine cases.
For powder cocaine, a similar disparity exists. The Commission's
May 2002 report found that only 6.7 percent of powder cocaine cases
were brought against high level offenders, while 68 percent of powder
cocaine cases were brought against the lowest-level offenders.
Are you concerned that the federal crack powder laws target ``small
fish'' instead of drug kingpins of organized drug cartels?
Answer. Federal statutes do not target ``small fish'' instead of
large scale traffickers and organized cartels. Federal statutes carry
strong penalties for trafficking in meaningful amounts of cocaine
powder and cocaine base. Individuals who are first time offenders and
are not leaders or managers of a drug organization are eligible for
more lenient treatment pursuant to the ``safety valve'' provisions of
18 U.S.C. 3553(f). Individuals who deal in large amounts of cocaine
powder or cocaine base are subject to appropriately long sentences. An
individual who deals in at least five kilograms or more of cocaine
powder is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, as is
an individual who deals in at least 50 grams of cocaine base (crack).
In addition, leaders and organizers of drug organizations are subject
to the severe penalties of 21 U.S.C. 848, the Continuing Criminal
Enterprise Statute, which carries penalties of from 20 years to life
imprisonment.
Question. Does the DEA focus its drug interdiction efforts on high-
level traffickers? Please explain.
Answer. DEA is committed to bringing those organizations involved
in the illicit growing, manufacturing, diversion, laundering of
proceeds, or distribution of controlled substances to the criminal and
civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent
jurisdiction. The DEA focuses a significant amount of its resources on
attacking Priority Target Organizations (PTOs), which are major drug
supply and money laundering organizations operating at the
international, national, regional, and local levels having a
significant impact upon drug availability.
In addition, DEA works closely with key drug enforcement programs
such as the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
program to accomplish its mission. The OCDETF member agencies
identified international command and control organizations representing
the most significant international drug trafficking organizations
threatening the United States. These targets are referred to as
Consolidated Priority Organization Targets (CPOTs). Efforts to disrupt
and dismantle CPOT and PTO organizations are primarily accomplished
through multi-agency investigations mostly directed by DEA. In fiscal
year 2006, DEA participated in approximately 90 percent of all OCDETF
cases, and had the lead or co-lead in approximately 80 percent of
OCDETF investigations.
DEA also participates in enforcement-related programs such as
specialized training for state and local law enforcement designed to
improve their abilities to enforce state drug laws and target and
dismantle street lead drug trafficking organizations and demand
reduction programs designed to educate citizens concerning the dangers
of drugs and emerging drug trends. These programs are aimed at reducing
the availability of and demand for illicit controlled substances.
Question. At the November 14, 2006 hearing before the Sentencing
Commission, DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Diversion Control, Joseph T. Rannazzisi, testified that cocaine enters
the United States in the form of powder cocaine, and powder cocaine is
converted into crack cocaine once the powder cocaine reaches the street
level. According to Mr. Rannazzisi, crack cocaine is usually trafficked
at the street level.
I understand that the DEA believes it is targeting street level
crack or powder dealers to work up the chain to higher level dealers.
What are the largest amounts of crack cocaine that the DEA has
confiscated during a single drug arrest in the last five years?
Answer. DEA's database does not distinguish between ``crack''
cocaine and cocaine base because ``crack'' is a form of cocaine base.
However, DEA does target street level drug dealers with the goal of
working up the chain to the higher level trafficking organizations. DEA
focuses on attacking the organizations which are the major drug supply
and money laundering organizations operating at the international,
national, regional, and local levels having a significant impact upon
drug availability.
For example, in May of 2006, the Seattle Field Division completed
an eight-month investigation focused on decreasing the growing problem
of ``open-air'' drug markets in the East and West precincts of Seattle.
Over the course of this deployment, many individuals were arrested for
selling small quantities of drugs to undercover officers. The Seattle
Filed Division's Special Agent in Charge, Rodney Benson, stated that
``those street-level cases have resulted in a significant number of
major, long-term investigations that we're working on right now,''
which focus primarily on those individuals high-up on the drug
distribution food chain. This investigation resulted in the disruption
of two drug trafficking organizations; 311 arrests; and the seizure of
approximately .41 pounds of powder cocaine, 3.46 pounds of crack
cocaine, .02 pounds of methamphetamine, 3.56 pounds of heroin, .21
pounds of marijuana, .46 pounds of steroids, .14 pounds of ecstasy, and
.21 pounds of miscellaneous prescription pills, and over $150,000 in
assets.
Question. What are the largest amounts of powder cocaine that the
DEA has confiscated during a single drug arrest in the last five years?
Answer. The largest amount of powder cocaine that DEA has seized
during the last five years was on November 5, 2004 in Key West, Florida
for 11.9 metric tons of cocaine. DEA's database does not tell us if
this occurred during a single drug arrest though, so potentially there
could have been multiple arrests in this case that resulted in this
amount of seized cocaine.
Even larger seizures have been made by agencies that work with DEA.
On March 17, 2007, the U.S. Coast Guard, acting on information provided
by DEA and Panamanian law enforcement, seized approximately 22 metric
tons of cocaine aboard a Panamanian flagged motor vessel off the coast
of Panama. This record-breaking seizure was the result of actionable
intelligence provided by Panamanian law enforcement officials and close
collaboration through DEA's multi-agency cocaine interdiction program,
Operation Panama Express.
Previously, the largest cocaine seizures by the Coast Guard were:
13.6 metric tons from the stateless-vessel Lina Maria, on Sept. 17,
2004; and 11.9 metric tons from the Cambodian-flagged vessel Svesda
Maru on May 1, 2001.
Question. Crack is the only drug for which the first offense of
simple possession can trigger a federal mandatory minimum sentence.
Under 21 U.S.C. 844, possession of 5 grams of crack will trigger a 5
year mandatory minimum sentence.
Would reforming 844 allow the DEA's anti-drug efforts more
effective by focusing its resources on preventing drug trafficking by
drug cartels instead of wasting precious time and resources on low-
level street dealers?
Answer. As stated in the answer to the question above, DEA already
focuses its resources ``on preventing drug trafficking by drug
cartels.'' Increasing the amount of crack that will trigger a five-year
mandatory minimum sentence would not augment DEA's ability to dismantle
drug cartels. The value of mandatory minimum sentences such as the
five-year mandatory minimum for crack cocaine is that they facilitate
DEA's ability to gain cooperation. A recent example is an important
investigation of a DEA Atlanta Division crack cocaine trafficking
organization that was built upon purchasing just a few ounces of crack
cocaine from several mid-level members of the organization. Some of the
original cooperating sources were working to lessen their sentences for
selling user amounts of crack cocaine and other drugs. The
investigation resulted in the arrest of more than 15 violators and the
seizure of cash, securities and property in excess of one million
dollars. The leader of the organization entered a plea of guilty and
received 20 years in jail. The guilty plea was obtained due to the high
minimum mandatory sentences that his subordinates were facing for the
sales of ounce quantities of crack cocaine; they were motivated to
cooperate and potentially testify against their boss.
Please note that while DEA believes that mandatory minimum
sentences are a valuable tool in gaining cooperation and incapacitating
dangerous drug traffickers and organizations, we do not agree that
Federal law enforcement officers or prosecutors are devoting any
measurable amount of resources to investigating or prosecuting cases of
possession under 21 U.S.C. 844. The fiscal year 2005 statistics from
the United States Sentencing Commission show that only 0.8 percent of
powder cocaine cases were for simple possession, and only 1.1 percent
of crack cases involved a simple possession charge. The percentages of
actual drug trafficking charges in 2005 for powder and crack cocaine
were 98.4 and 95.3, respectively.
international drug issues
Question. Last year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(``UNODC'') reported that there has been a surge in opium cultivation
in Afghanistan that is fueling the insurgency in that country.
According to the report, opium production in Afghanistan has increased
59 percent over last year, and in the southern region where Taliban
insurgents have intensified their attacks on Afghan government and U.S.
forces, opium cultivation has increased by 162 percent.
What steps is the DEA taking to address the growing opium trade in
Afghanistan?
Answer. DEA is working to help the Government of Afghanistan
establish the drug enforcement institutions and capabilities they must
have to enforce the rule of law. This means successfully identifying,
disrupting, and dismantling major drug trafficking organizations that
fuel and profit from the narco-economy.
Out of the six major Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO) heads
targeted by Operation Containment, four have been arrested to include
Haji Bashir Noorzai and Haji Baz Mohammad who are being prosecuted in
the United States. The operation has also led to significant seizures
of narcotics and precursor chemicals and the dismantlement and
disruption of organizations involved in the Southwest Asian drug trade.
The four other major DTO heads targeted by Operation Containment
are Shabaz Khan, who was arrested in the United Arab Emirates and is
currently on trial, Urifi Cetinkaya, who is serving a prison sentence
in Turkey, Cumhur Yakut, who has been indicted, and Haji Juma Khan, who
has not yet been indicted.
In October 2005, Haji Baz Mohammad--Drug Kingpin and CPOT--was
extradited to the United States. This marked the first-ever extradition
between the United States and Afghanistan.
DEA's Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Teams (FAST) advise, train,
and mentor their Afghan counterparts in the National Interdiction Unit
(NIU) of the Counter Narcotics Police--Afghanistan (CNP-A), and
directly augment the Kabul Country Office in conducting bilateral
investigations to identify, target, and dismantle transnational drug
trafficking operations in the region. The five FAST each consist of a
Group Supervisor, four Special Agents, and one Intelligence Research
Specialist.
DEA has trained the NIU's 126 law enforcement officers in the
conduct of drug enforcement operations.
Question. Does DEA have the resources to be effective in curbing
the Afghan opium trade? If yes, how are those resources being allocated
and utilized? If not, where are increased resources needed?
Answer. DEA's base funding for FAST program is $8.3 million, which
is sufficient to fund continuing deployments to Afghanistan and refresh
equipment.
The following support for DEA's operations in Afghanistan is
provided by DOD:
--DOD is providing basing support at Bagram Air Base for DEA FAST
members and facilities for the FAST teams remaining in the
Continental United States (CONUS) at the Marine Corps Base at
Quantico, Virginia; a hangar and fuel to support the DEA King
Air 350 twin-engine turboprop aircraft currently in
Afghanistan; two DEA King Air maintenance personnel in Kabul;
and facilities to protect, house, feed, and operate at the
National Interdiction Unit (NIU) site in Kabul, Afghanistan.
--DOD is providing transportation support for the NIU, which is the
Afghan counterpart to DEA and the Afghan unit with whom the
FAST conducts counternarcotics operations. The NIU received its
basic training from DOD and currently has more than 100
personnel. DOD provides transportation for DEA FAST personnel
and supporting equipment from CONUS to Afghanistan and back.
--DOD is acquiring thirteen (13) MI-17 helicopters for the Afghan
Ministry of Interior to support the Counter Narcotics Police--
Afghanistan (CNP-A), NIU, and DEA Special Agents.
--DOD is providing operational and logistical support and assistance
through the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and elements of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
--DOD is providing investigational support by providing Ring Flights
to DEA Special Agents. Since February 2005, DOD has provided 26
Ring Flights to DEA. These ring flights allow us to gather
counter-narcotics intelligence, interview confidential sources
and other sources of information in the outlying provinces,
meet Afghan law enforcement counterparts to plan and coordinate
investigations, meet local and provincial Afghan officials, and
travel to Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) to meet Afghan
counterparts and U.S. Military personnel.
--DOD is constructing significant infrastructure for the NIU,
including facilities to protect, house, feed, train, and
operate. Facilities are also under construction for the
Counter-narcotics Judicial Center, which will provide a secure
location to detain and prosecute narcotics traffickers. DOD
also provided weapons, night vision devices, and other
equipment to the NIU.
--DOD provides DEA FAST training at military installations in the
United States prior to deployment.
--DOD has provided communications equipment for FAST command and
control in Afghanistan. Additional communications equipment is
being provided to the NIU.
--DOD has been actively working with the DEA, Department of State,
U.S. Embassy Kabul, and Afghan Ministry of Interior officials
to fund the expansion of the CNP-A.
--DOD has provided 4.5 million rounds ammunition for FAST and the
NIU.
--DOD has provided contract medical, communications, logistical, and
intelligence support to DEA and the NIU on a daily basis.
DEA could not maintain its presence in Afghanistan without the
support it receives from DOD. Unfortunately, DEA operations have been
severely limited due to lack of air mobility and security.
As a new and non-standard aircraft acquisition program, the MI-17
Helicopter Program has suffered setbacks and benefited from product
improvements as they have been fielded. As a result the program is
behind its estimated operational target of CY 2005. As of May 2007,
none of the 6 MI-17 helicopters have flown law enforcement operations
with CNP-A/NIU officers or DEA Special Agents.
Three Afghan pilots' classes have graduated from DOD training
provided at Fort Bliss, Texas however aircraft delays have made it
impossible for the Afghan pilots to keep their flight skills current.
They are currently being checked by instructor pilots, prior to being
qualified to fly pilots in command. Until that time, all crews will be
mixed U.S./Afghan crews.
Finding permanent space for DEA's Afghanistan based King Air 350
and a second King Air, currently being modified for aerial
surveillance, has proven to be a challenge. DEA and DOD are currently
working to secure permanent space at the Bagram Airfield. If
unsuccessful, the removal of the King Airs would significantly
undermine DEA enforcement efforts.
Question. I am concerned whether the price and availability of
cocaine has changed significantly as a result of DEA's international
eradication efforts. Our country has given $5.4 billion in aid to
support Plan Colombia. Yet, if you compare the price and availability
of cocaine now to the price and availability of cocaine in 2001--at the
start of Plan Colombia--there has been no significant change in either
the availability or the price of cocaine on America's streets. In fact,
according to ``Connecting the Dots: ONDCP's (Reluctant) Update on
Cocaine Price and Purity,'' an April 2007 report by the Drug Policy
Program of the Washington Office on Latin America, preliminary U.S.
government data indicates that cocaine's price per pure gram on U.S.
streets fell in 2006, while its purity increased.
These latest estimates, continuing a 25-year trend, suggest that
cocaine supplies are stable or even increasing. Congress was told that
Plan Colombia would cut cocaine production by half, but it obviously
has failed to do that. Do you believe it is now time for DEA to rethink
its international eradication strategy?
Answer. DEA does not have an international eradication strategy for
Colombia. The U.S. Department of State's Narcotics Affairs Section
(NAS) is responsible for the aerial eradication program in Colombia.
The mission of DEA's Bogota Country Office and Cartegena Resident
Office is to conduct bilateral investigations and enforcement
operations to reduce the drug supply by targeting, disrupting or
dismantling the most wanted international drug trafficking
organizations impacting the United States. Thus, DEA's operations in
Colombia are concerned with interdiction rather than eradication.
Question. President Uribe has extradited about 400 people indicted
for drug crimes in the United States, which I commend. However, none of
them are top paramilitary leaders nor, with a couple of exceptions, are
any of them FARC leaders. As you indicated at the last budget hearing
in April 2006, it is one matter to indict someone and another to
extradite and convict them.
Do you support the suspension of extradition of paramilitary
leaders who have been responsible for the shipment of tons of cocaine
to the United States?
Answer. If Autodefensas Unidades de Colombia (AUC) members
currently involved in the peace process continue to traffic drugs and/
or commit other crimes, DEA and the Department of State believe they
should be extradited. Although suspension of extraditions is not
consistent with the U.S. government's goal of bringing violent,
transnational criminals to justice, such a peace plan would further our
interests of attaining political stability throughout the region and
strengthening the democratic institutions of Colombia. The Government
of Colombia has indicated to DEA that if an AUC member is indicted in
the United States for drug trafficking since the time they surrendered
to the Justice and Peace process, then that member is subject to
extradition.
Although the Uribe Administration continues to support extradition
requests by the United States for paramilitary AUC members, there is a
concern that it may be difficult for the Administration to follow
through with the extradition of some key AUC leaders, particularly
those who are critical to the peace and demobilization process. While
engaged in the peace and demobilization process, the Colombian
Government has suspended their extradition warrants. DEA anticipates
that if these individuals comply with the Justice and Peace Law, they
will receive a sentence of between 5-8 years and the extradition
warrants will continue to be suspended. Under Colombian Law 975, known
as the Justice and Peace Law, the demobilized members of the AUC who
have committed massacres, drug trafficking, and other crimes are
eligible for reduced sentences if they comply with the requirements of
confessing to their crimes and making restitution to their victims.
However, the Uribe administration has assured the U.S. Embassy that if
there is evidence that an individual is continuing to engage in drug
trafficking and other illegal activities after the July 25, 2005
signing date, they will be removed from the process and their
extradition warrant will again become active.
Question. Has the DEA or the State Department told the Colombian
Government that the United States agrees with these suspensions? Has
the DEA or State Department told the Colombian Government that the
United States disagrees?
Answer. Please see DEA's response to question above.
Question. What are the total numbers of FARC indictees that have
been actually extradited?
Answer. Since the amendment to the Colombian Constitution on
December 17, 1997, the Colombian Government has extradited 539
fugitives to the United States. Of that number, 7 were FARC members and
8 were AUC members.
Of the 50 FARC indictments unsealed on March 22, 2006, three have
been captured and are awaiting extradition. To date, none have been
extradited.
methamphetamine
Question. According to a November 2006 report by the U.S. National
Drug Intelligence Center, cartel labs in Mexico and California now
produce about 80 percent of the methamphetamine in the United States.
What steps has DEA taken to decrease the amount of methamphetamine
produced in Mexico?
Answer. DEA is working hard with the Government of Mexico to target
the criminal organizations involved in the diversion of precursor
chemicals and the producing and trafficking of methamphetamine. Mexico
has imposed import quotas tied to estimates of national needs. The
Mexican Government limited pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and combination
product importation permits to 70 tons during 2006; this is a reduction
of 53 percent from the 2005 level of imports (150 tons). This quota has
made it more difficult for traffickers to obtain precursor chemicals.
Prices have increased and traffickers have been forced to resort to
traditional diversion methods, including smuggling and the use of third
countries to procure their chemicals. In addition, intelligence
indicates that traffickers have also turned to alternate production
methods for methamphetamine and the apparent use of substitute
chemicals as the traditional precursors are becoming more difficult to
obtain. Mexico has discussed revising their quota downward even further
in 2007.
In May 2006, at the National Methamphetamine and Chemicals
Initiative (NMCI) Strategy Conference in Dallas, Attorney General
Gonzales announced important new anti-methamphetamine domestic
initiatives, as well as new partnerships between the United States and
Mexico in fighting methamphetamine trafficking. These initiatives will
improve enforcement and information sharing, increase law enforcement
training, and increase public awareness both domestically and
internationally. Since this announcement, methamphetamine enforcement
teams have been formed on both sides of the border and DEA, with the
assistance of the U.S. Department of State, has donated eight
refurbished clan lab trucks to Mexico.
Additionally, DEA and the Department of State, Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs trained over 2,000
Mexican officials in fiscal year 2006 on a variety of investigative,
enforcement, and regulatory methods related to methamphetamine
trafficking and manufacturing. This training included instruction on
clandestine laboratory investigations, precursor chemical
investigation, and drug identification. As a result of this training,
Mexican law enforcement officials have had significant success in
identifying labs.
In fiscal year 2006, DEA also trained over 41,000 State and local
law enforcement officers, including over 1,000 in how to conduct
investigations and dismantle seized methamphetamine labs. By the end of
2008, DEA also plans to complete a clandestine laboratory training
facility to better train more state and local officers.
DEA has expanded the role of its Clan Lab Enforcement Teams to
target Mexican methamphetamine trafficking organizations. These teams
use their lab expertise to trace chemicals, finished methamphetamine,
and drug proceeds to drug trafficking organizations in the United
States and Mexico. These teams also work to identify and dismantle
U.S.-based methamphetamine transportation and distribution cells.
DEA has also developed an intelligence collection program,
Operation White Fang, to assist in the identification and targeting of
organizations responsible for producing and trafficking methamphetamine
across the entire Southwest Border. The operation focuses particularly
on the groups responsible for the drug related violence facilitated by
the major Mexican cartels operating along the U.S./Mexico border. In
the fiscal year 2008 President's budget, DEA requests $325,000 for this
operation.
Question. Recent reports show an increase in drug gang activity in
the area of methamphetamine and over-the-counter medicines. I am
concerned that this may be leading to an increase in violence in some
communities.
Has DEA taken any steps to address this situation?
Answer. Recently, DEA has seen an increase in cases involving
violent organized gangs, such as MS-13 and La Familia. Many of these
gangs are typically, poly-drug and poly-criminal opportunists. Some of
them are involved in trafficking various quantities of methamphetamine
and precursor chemicals in states such as California. Historically,
domestic motorcycle gangs, such as the Hell's Angels, have been the
primary gangs involved in the manufacturing and trafficking of
methamphetamine. As part of its mission, DEA targets violent gangs
involved in drug trafficking activity, such as the Hell's Angels, Latin
Kings, Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafia, and Gangster Disciples.
To handle this problem DEA participates in a number of anti-gang
initiatives with other law enforcement components, including the
National Gang Intelligence Center, ATF's Violent Crime Impact Teams
(VCIT) and Project Safe Neighborhoods, FBI's Safe Streets and Safe
Trails Task Forces, DOJ's Weed and Seed Program, and the Attorney
General's Anti-Gang Coordination Committee \1\ (GangTECC) which
oversees all of the above listed programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the fiscal year 2008 President's budget, DEA is requesting 1
Special Agent position in support of Gang TECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. According to a March 25, 2007, article in the USA Today,
``reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the
nation stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that
drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.'' The article
reports that among the new flavors are strawberry, known as
``strawberry quick,'' chocolate, cola, and other sodas. And, the
article reports, that a DEA agent reported a red meth that has been
marketed as a powdered form of energy drink.
Given these recent reports, how widespread has flavored crystal
meth products become?
Answer. With the continual stream of negative press regarding
methamphetamine, drug traffickers are trying to lure new customers by
making meth seem less dangerous. Since the early 1980s there have been
regional occurrences of different colors and better tasting
methamphetamine. ``Strawberry Quick'' and other flavors are just the
latest of the trends in the marketing of methamphetamine. According to
intelligence, the flavored crystals are available in California,
Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and Minnesota.
Normally, methamphetamine is white or brownish and bitter-tasting.
Strawberry Quick may be popular among new users who snort
methamphetamine because the flavoring can cut down the taste.
Traffickers are savvy marketers, and they continue to create new ways
to market their drug of choice, especially to young people.
Question. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health
by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the
number of people 12 and older who used meth for the first time in the
previous year decreased from 318,000 people in 2004 to 192,000 people
in 2005.
Are you concerned that drug traffickers are trying to lure in new
customers, particularly young people, by making meth seem less
dangerous? If so, what steps is DEA taking to address this issue?
Answer. While the primary function of DEA is to enforce the
nation's federal drug laws, we understand that law enforcement alone
cannot solve America's drug problems. DEA works with the youth
concerning the abuse and awareness of drugs including the serious
hazards of methamphetamine. Through DEA's Demand Reduction program, DEA
shares drug law enforcement expertise and intelligence on the nature
and extent of the national, regional and local drug threat and on
emerging drug enforcement priorities. In conjunction with its
prevention partners, DEA engages in aggressive public messaging
campaigns to illustrate the consequences of drug use, particularly for
non-users who suffer collateral damage as a result of the illegal drug
trade. For example, in August of 2005, DEA launched a new website for
teens, justthinktwice.com. Since its inception the justthinktwice.com
website has averaged over 200,000 hits per month. This website provides
teens with straightforward information on the consequences of drugs to
users and non-users and gives teens the tools they need to make sound
decisions about drugs. Included in the site is information on
methamphetamine, prescription drugs, drugged driving, drug endangered
children, marijuana, drug legalization, and the federal penalties for
drug trafficking and manufacturing. Justthinktwice.com also dispels
many of the myths that teens have about drugs by giving them the facts
about drug legalization, ``medical'' marijuana, and other topics.
Question. Last year, the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act became
law as Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005 (Public Law 109-177), and which was designed to retail over-
the-counter sales of certain precursors that are common ingredients in
cold medicines. Under this law, consumers purchasing cold medicines
containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine must show
identification and sign a log book at pharmacies. DEA, along with state
and local law enforcement entities, are responsible for monitoring
these log books in order to identify if any one person has purchased
more than 9 grams within a month's time.
Do you believe the log book is working as hoped to support
investigations?
Answer. As a result of state and CMEA legislation, which was
implemented in September 2006, the downward trend in seizures of
clandestine laboratories is unmistakable. In 2005 there were a total of
12,619 reported incidents involving clan labs. Calendar year 2006 saw a
decrease of 43 percent, or a total of 7,180 incidents. Through April
25, 2007, only 720 incidents involving clan labs have been reported.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Super California
Year Incidents Labs Only Labs Super Labs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005............................................................... 12,619 5,879 34 28
2006............................................................... 7,180 3,346 13 10
2007............................................................... 720 361 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Could federal enforcement efforts be more effective if
the log book was electronic?
Answer. Logbooks in and of themselves serve are an effective
enforcement tool because they deter illegal purchases of products
containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. Persons
who might be considering the purchase of these products for diversion
to the illicit production of methamphetamine are deterred by the
requirement to provide personal information (name and address) and
their signature. Logbooks could be more effective as an enforcement
tool if the data was collected electronically. If the data was
collected electronically, aggregation of the data across retail
locations and between states would be easier and potentially more
effective.
Question. What enforcement resources has DEA dedicated to this
area?
Answer. Investigative authority to enforce CMEA rests with a
general workforce of approximately 500 Diversion Investigators and
5,000 Special Agents agency-wide. DEA also leads over 200 state and
local task forces with over 2,100 state and local task force officers.
DEA will investigate violations of not only the CMEA, but any violation
of the Controlled Substance Act as necessary.
Question. The Combat Meth Act required DEA to establish production
quotas and import quotas for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine. This effort was done in order to prevent the
illicit use of these three chemicals in the clandestine manufacture of
methamphetamine.
Do you believe the system for establishing import quotas is working
smoothly?
Answer. Although the quota regulations for the CMEA have not yet
been fully implemented, DEA's 30+ years experience establishing quota
for other pharmaceutical will ensure smooth administration of the
import quota applications.
Question. Can you give us your assurance that the quotas
established are adequate for medical use?
Answer. DEA's experience with the schedule I and II controlled
substances quotas provides a solid foundation for the application and
implementation of quotas to the list I chemicals: pseudoephedrine,
ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine as outlined in the CMEA. DEA's
diligent oversight of the quota applications and process will ensure an
uninterruptible supply of medicine is available in the United States
once this law is fully implemented.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826, DEA is required to establish
limits on the production of Schedules I and II controlled substances.
The total quantity for each basic class of controlled substance in
Schedules I and II is required to be determined on an annual basis. The
quotas for controlled substances are established each calendar year to
provide sufficient material for the estimated legitimate medical,
scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States, for
lawful export requirements and for the establishment and maintenance of
reserve stocks. In addition, quotas are intended to limit the
availability of legitimately manufactured controlled substances which
can be diverted into the illegitimate market.
There are three types of quotas that are established pursuant to 21
CFR Part 1303: Aggregate production quotas, manufacturing quotas and
procurement quotas. Procurement quotas are issued to DEA registered
manufacturers who purchase Schedule I or Schedule II material and use
that material to formulate finished dosage forms i.e. legitimate
medicine. Manufacturing quotas are issued to DEA registered bulk
manufacturers. A manufacturing quota is the amount of substance a
company may produce in a calendar year. Aggregate production quotas
(APQ) reflect the maximum amount of each controlled substance in
Schedule I and II which may be produced in a given calendar year. The
APQ is historically established once and revised mid-year, but the
administrator has the authority to adjust individual APQ at any time.
Similarly, the DEA establishes manufacturer's individual manufacturing
and procurement quotas after careful consideration of the registrant's
application, legitimate needs and prior year's year end inventory.
The DEA utilizes two types of information when establishing quotas:
evidence of legitimate need and evidence of diversion abuse and illicit
trafficking. The evidence of legitimate need is provided primarily by
industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and actual
pharmaceutical sales trend data supplied by an independent unbiased
source. Companies submit yearly applications and data to DEA that
includes actual sales, exports, actual production, customers, product
development (FDA requirements), batch size, losses, retains and
inventories of their controlled substances.
DEA must take into consideration the total net disposal (sales and
national trends), inventories, projected demands and other factors
affecting medical, scientific, research and industrial needs in the
United States and lawful export requirements before adjustment are made
to individual procurement and manufacturing quotas. Due to changing
needs of industry, a registrant may request an increase in their
established quotas at any time. There has never been an occasion in
which this process has led to a disruption in a patient's access to
necessary medications.
Specifically regarding the three substances controlled under the
CMEA, the DEA developed proposed estimates of the medical need of the
United States for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine.
The methodology used was developed with the assistance of an
independent contractor that utilized three parallel data sets.
In establishing the 2007 estimates, DEA also considered exports,
known industrial uses of these substances, and inventory requirements.
The establishment of quotas is published as a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the Federal Register with an opportunity for public
comment.
In addition, FDA and the Pharmaceutical Industry are working to
develop new and reformulated products to insure that there has been no
interruption of the supply of OTC products containing a nasal
decongestant, because drug companies have reformulated some of their
OTC products by replacing pseudoephedrine with phenylephrine, a nasal
decongestant. FDA has determined that products which contain
phenylephrine are safe and effective and have effects similar to
pseudoephedrine.
drug use
Question. At the last April 5, 2006, budget hearing, I asked you
whether the price and availability of cocaine has changed significantly
as a result of DEA's efforts. In response, you stated that there have
been ``statistically significant'' changes in certain areas, and ``It's
measurable.''
Since 2001, have the arrests and cocaine seizures by DEA had a
sustained impact on the availability of cocaine?
Answer. DEA's large-scale Drug Flow Attack enforcement operations
have had a major impact on the domestic drug markets. From the first
quarter of 2007 through the second quarter of 2007, the average price
per pure gram of all domestic cocaine purchases increased 24 percent.
DEA's Operation All Inclusive, the centerpiece of DEA's Drug Flow
Attack Strategy, has caused major disruption in the flow of cocaine,
money, and chemicals between source zone areas and the U.S. Operation
All Inclusive 2007 resulted in the seizure of 115 metric tons of
cocaine which is 12 to 28 percent of the estimated quantity of cocaine
transported through the transit zones to the United States during 2006.
Also, in comparing the three month periods before and after Operation
All Inclusive 2005, the average price per pure gram of cocaine
increased 43 percent.
Furthermore, DEA in conjunction with ONDCP, commissioned a 16-month
study by the CNA Corporation (CNAC) to determine the impact of law
enforcement activities on cocaine availability in Atlanta, Chicago, and
Dallas for the period 1999 through 2003.\2\ The study, which was
completed in April, 2006, sought to (1) to develop a model to identify
and quantify the relationship between law enforcement activities
(primarily DEA) and cocaine availability, and (2) to determine whether
a common model was appropriate for all three cities. The study
concluded that it is the cumulative or sustained impact of law
enforcement activities that seem to best explain price and purity
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Impact of Law Enforcement Activities on Cocaine Availability:
Atlanta, Chicago, and Dallas, The CNA Corporation for ONDCP and DEA
with Department of Health and Human Services, IPR 11781, April 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study confirmed that DEA's priority targeting system did have
some temporary impact on availability as observed by price and purity
proxy measures in the selected cities. A sustained increase in arrests,
arrests per case, and cocaine seizures are each associated with a
statistically significant increase in cocaine price and decrease in
cocaine purity. However, if increased levels of these law enforcement
measures are not maintained, price and purity will return to their
previous levels. Moreover, while prices were not higher in 2003 than in
1999, CNAC inferred that the prices would have been lower and the drug
problem worse in the absence of law enforcement activities.
CNAC researchers concluded further that it is impossible to create
a single model to assess availability at the national level, or even
between the selected cities. Not only are there simply no accurate
measures of the quantity of cocaine available locally, regionally, or
nationally, but there are too many variables that can have a
significant effect on availability.
Selected key findings
Arrests, arrests per case, and cocaine seizures have an impact on
price and purity, and, by inference, on cocaine availability, although
the impact may not materialize for several months. In addition to the
quantity of arrests, the concentration of arrests (i.e., targeting
specific organizations) in a specific case had an impact on price and
purity. Ten arrests in 1 case, rather than 1 arrest in 10 cases, caused
bigger disruption or dismantlement than arrests spread across several
cases.
The CNAC study concluded that it is the cumulative or sustained
impact of law enforcement activities that seem to best explain price
and purity changes: ``Another way to think about this is that price and
purity were at about the same level in 2003 as in 1999. All of the law
enforcement activities in those five years did not drive price to a new
permanent high or purity to a new permanent low. What we observed were
often substantial, but temporary, price and purity changes following
short-lived increases in arrests or cocaine seizures. For example,
prices were relatively high and purity relatively low in Chicago and
Atlanta in 2000 following a substantial increase in the number of
arrests in those cities.'' In Chicago, for example, a sustained 20-
percent increase in arrests was associated with an 8 percent ($13.00)
increase in the price per pure gram for powder cocaine and a 4 percent
($6.00) per gram increase for crack cocaine. To the degree that powder
prices are more indicative of the wholesale market and crack the retail
market, DEA arrests impacted the wholesale market more than the retail
market.
Question. At that same hearing, I asked you whether you agreed,
that in Washington, D.C., the prices of crack cocaine have not
increased and the availability of cocaine is about the same as it was
three years ago. In response, you stated that you would get back to me.
A year later, we still have not received a response.
Does the evidence show that the price and availability of cocaine
in Washington, D.C. has changed significantly as a result of DEA's
efforts?
Answer. The following is a brief overview of the cocaine pricing
and availability situation in Washington, D.C.
Cocaine Prices
DEA's Washington Division reports that cocaine prices in
Washington, D.C. have remained stable over the past six years, as have
cocaine availability and abuse patterns. Cocaine price data for the
period January through March 2006 indicate that cocaine hydrochloride
sold for $1,100 per ounce in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area
compared to a price range of $900-$1,250 in 2001. Kilogram and gram
powder cocaine prices and crack cocaine prices were not reported for
2006.
Prices are derived from undercover buys, Confidential Source (CS)
information, and defendant information. Price data is not a completely
accurate indicator of supply and demand. Much of this information is
anecdotal, and prices cannot be validated through any scientific
methodology. The greater the quantity, the more anecdotal the
information, since DEA does not often purchase kilogram quantities.
The following chart provides the latest data available on cocaine
prices for Washington, D.C. The national price range is provided for
comparison.
WASHINGTON, D.C. COCAINE PRICE RANGES 2001-2006
[National Price Range Provided for Comparison]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powder Cocaine (cocaine HCl):
Kilo--DC.......................... 16,500-35,000 17,500-35,000 17,000-35,000 24,000-25,000 23,000-27,000 19,000-26,000
Kilo--National.................... 13,000-35,000 10,000-35,000 10,000-35,000 10,000-35,000 7,000-34,000 9,000-52,000
Ounce--DC......................... 900-1,250 600-2,000 825-1,300 900-1,100 650-1,250 1,100
Ounce--National................... 400-1,600 400-3,500 375-1,800 350-1,800 300-1,600 300-2,000
Gram--DC.......................... 50-100 30-80 50-100 100 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Gram--National.................... 20-200 24-150 25-100 9-200 20-200 13-350
Crack Cocaine (cocaine base):
Kilo--DC.......................... 28,000-34,000 30,000 28,000-34,000 28,000-34,000 28,000-34,000 ( \1\ )
Kilo--National.................... 13,000-50,000 13,000-35,000 7,500-35,000 8,000-38,000 14,000-34,000 13,000-32,000
Ounce--DC......................... 900-1,300 900-1,750 1,000-1,300 1,000-1,200 550-1,250 900-1,200
Ounce National.................... 300-2,800 325-2,800 325-2,000 325-2,000 325-2,000 210-3,800
Gram--DC.......................... 80-100 80-100 80-100 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Gram--National.................... 10-200 10-130 10-130 18-200 20-200 12-200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N/R.
Source: Quarterly Trends in Traffick Report--DEA Washington Division.
Changes in the Washington, D.C. Cocaine Market
The main change in cocaine trafficking in the metropolitan area
pertains to cocaine sources of supply. Over the past several years,
cocaine smuggling from North Carolina and from the Southwest Border
(especially Texas and Arizona) has increased. This mainly impacts
Southern Virginia, but still affects Northern Virginia and Washington,
D.C. Drug trafficking organizations in New York City, however, still
appear to be the principal cocaine suppliers for Washington, D.C.
Cocaine Availability
The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) indicates
that cocaine availability has remained stable over the past several
years. The MPD also reports that drug-related violence remains static,
with the exception of homicides, which have decreased over the past
five years.
Cocaine Hydrochloride (HCl).--Kilogram quantities of cocaine HCl
continue to arrive in the DEA Washington Division area of
responsibility (Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and West
Virginia). Powder cocaine sold on the mid- to retail level remains
widely available. The quantities of cocaine HCl available in any given
area greatly depend on abuse patterns, the level of distribution at
which a particular dealer conducts business, and the prevalence of
cocaine abuse in that area. Cocaine HCl most commonly is found in gram
and ounce quantities for resale in suburban and rural areas, but in
larger quantities (i.e., quantities appropriate for redistribution
after conversion to crack) in urban areas of the Division.
Crack Cocaine.--Crack cocaine is available throughout the
Washington Division are of responsibility in quantities ranging from
rocks up to one kilogram. Most of the crack cocaine distributed within
the Division is brought in as cocaine HCl and subsequently converted to
crack. Generally, significant quantities of crack cocaine are not
stockpiled and are manufactured according to demand.
Question. Two months ago, Administrative Law Judge Mary Bittner
ruled that University of Massachusetts Professor Dr. Lyle Craker could
grow marijuana for medical research purposes. Judge Bittner found a
``minimal risk'' that the marijuana would be diverted to the black
market. And she found that the government's current use of one medical
marijuana research facility insufficient to meet the needs of
legitimate medical researchers. DEA must now review Judge Bittner's
ruling granting Dr. Craker approval to cultivate medical marijuana.
What procedures will DEA follow in reviewing Judge Bittner's
ruling? Will DEA solicit the input of governmental and non-governmental
organizations in this process?
Answer. DEA has never denied a registration to a person seeking to
conduct clinical research with marijuana whose research protocol has
been deemed meritorious by the Department of Health and Human Services.
By law, DEA must--prior to granting a registration to conduct such
research--seek the input of the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) as to the scientific merit of the proposed research. If DHHS
finds the proposed research to be scientifically meritorious and the
researcher to be competent, DEA must assess whether the research will
have in place sufficient safeguards against diversion. Provided the
diversion controls are sufficient and the proposed research is
otherwise in conformity with the Controlled Substances Act, DEA will
grant the research registration. Under the Administrative Procedure Act
and the Controlled Substances Act, the Administrative Law Judge issues
recommendations rather than final decisions. Ultimately, the Deputy
Administrator of DEA makes the final determination.
The University of Massachusetts case has been submitted to the
Deputy Administrator for a final determination. While the case remains
pending before the agency, it would inappropriate for DEA to comment on
it.
Question. In May of 2006, DEA arrested five Mexican nationals
during a raid at a heroin lab in Toluca, Mexico. The lab was suspected
of being the principal source of fentanyl pushed into the U.S. drug
supply of heroin and cocaine, causing deaths in eight states. U.S. Drug
Czar John Walters estimated that there could be 1 million doses of the
tainted drug on the streets.
Are you concerned that drug traffickers have substantially poisoned
the U.S. drug supply?
Answer. DEA is deeply concerned over the illicit distribution of
fentanyl, which has caused an unprecedented outbreak of fentanyl-
related overdoses. Between April 2005 and February 2007, at least 972
confirmed fentanyl-related deaths, and an additional 162 suspected
fentanyl-related deaths have occurred primarily in Delaware, Illinois,
Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. A total of
903 confirmed fentanyl-related deaths occurred during 2006.
DEA has responded by hosting a coordination meeting of federal,
State, and local law enforcement officials in Chicago in June of 2006
to address this recent fentanyl outbreak. Several DEA Field Divisions,
including DEA's Mexico City office, the Department of Justice, and the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), state chemists, and
public health and treatment officials attended this event. DEA has
assisted the interagency response to the fentanyl threat by
participating in numerous teleconferences with SAMSHA (Substance Abuse
and Mental Services Health Administration), CDC (Centers for Disease
Control) and other agencies regarding fentanyl-related deaths.
Question. Is there any indication that traffickers may be building
more labs? And do you believe Congress needs to tighten controls on the
precursors used to make fentanyl?
Answer. Because of recent clandestine laboratory activity and the
serious threat illicitly produced fentanyl poses to the public safety,
DEA will regulate or control the chemical precursors used in the
illicit manufacture of fentanyl. These precursors are 4-anilino-N-
phenethyl-4-piperidine (ANPP), (CAS# 21409-26-7) and N-phenethyl-4-
piperidone (NPP), (CAS# 39742-60-4). Both of these precursors are
required to produce fentanyl. NPP produces ANPP which is not
commercially available and is the direct precursor to fentanyl.
DEA has controlled the intermediary precursor, N-phenethyl-4-
piperidone (NPP) as a List I chemical under the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA) through an Interim Rulemaking, effective April 23, 2007. The
new rule subjects handlers of NPP to the chemical regulatory provisions
of the CSA. The designation of NPP as a List I chemical subjects NPP
handlers to all of the regulatory controls and administrative, civil,
and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution,
importing, and exporting of a List I chemical. Persons potentially
handling NPP, including regulated chemical mixtures containing NPP, are
required to comply with the List I chemical regulations including
registration, records and reports, import/export, security, and
administrative inspection.
DEA is also moving to control the precursor chemical, 4-anilino-N-
phenethyl-4-piperidine (ANPP) as a schedule II controlled substance,
because it is an immediate precursor in the production of fentanyl and
warrants the stricter DEA controls applicable to schedule II drugs. DEA
is in the process of preparing a Federal Register Notice to propose
this control. As a schedule II controlled substance, ANPP will be
subject to the same registration, recordkeeping, security and import/
export controls as fentanyl.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
methamphetamine
Question. Administrator Tandy, methamphetamine use has become a
severe and very worrisome problem in Alabama. While the number of labs
seized in Alabama has decreased significantly the problems related to
this drug continue to worsen.
Can you tell the Committee how methamphetamine distribution has
changed?
Answer. Methamphetamine is unique from other common drugs of abuse
in that it is a synthetic drug, and its precursor chemicals have
historically been easy to obtain and inexpensive to purchase. These
factors contributed to methamphetamine's rapid sweep across our nation.
However, State legislation, the Federal Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic
Act, and law enforcement efforts have all contributed to a significant
decline in methamphetamine labs inside the United States. The number of
methamphetamine laboratory incidents reported in the United States has
decreased from 17,857 in 2004 to 7,385 in 2006, a 59 percent
decrease.\3\ The number of ``super labs'' seized in the United States
dropped from 144 in 2002 to 20 in 2006, a decrease of 86 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Methamphetamine laboratory incident data is current as of
August 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current drug and lab seizure data suggests that roughly 80 percent
of the methamphetamine used in the United States now comes from larger
laboratories run by Mexico-based trafficking organizations operating on
both sides of the border. The proliferation of methamphetamine across
the United States, and its spread to states such as Texas, Georgia, and
Alabama, has required our offices, in concert with their State and
local counterparts, to gear the majority of their methamphetamine
enforcement efforts towards the targeting of poly-drug trafficking
organizations, rather than small lab operators. These drug trafficking
organizations have distribution networks throughout the United States,
as well as access to drug transportation routes to smuggle the
methamphetamine from Mexico into the United States.
Question. How are you attacking this problem?
Answer. DEA is working hard with the Government of Mexico to target
the criminal organizations involved in the diversion of precursor
chemicals and the producing and trafficking of methamphetamine.
Relations between Mexican authorities and DEA are at an all time high
in terms of chemical control. Mexico has imposed import quotas tied to
estimates of legitimate national needs. The Mexican Government limited
pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and combination product importation permits
to 70 tons during 2006; this is a reduction of 53 percent from the 2005
level of imports (150 tons). Mexico has discussed revising their quota
downward even further in 2007.
In May 2006, at the National Methamphetamine and Chemicals
Initiative (NMCI) Strategy Conference in Dallas, Attorney General
Gonzales announced important new anti-methamphetamine domestic
initiatives, as well as new partnerships between the United States and
Mexico in fighting methamphetamine trafficking. These initiatives will
improve enforcement and information sharing, increase law enforcement
training, and increase public awareness both domestically and
internationally. Since this announcement, methamphetamine enforcement
teams have been formed on both sides of the border and DEA has donated
eight refurbished clan lab trucks to Mexico.
Additionally, DEA and the Department of State, Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs trained over 2,000
Mexican officials in fiscal year 2006 on a variety of investigative,
enforcement, and regulatory methods related to methamphetamine
trafficking and manufacturing. This training included instruction on
clandestine laboratory investigations, precursor chemical
investigation, and drug identification. As a result of this training,
Mexican law enforcement officials have had significant success in
identifying labs.
In fiscal year 2006, DEA also trained over 41,000 State and local
law enforcement officers, including over 1,000 in how to conduct
investigations and dismantle seized methamphetamine labs. By the end of
2008, DEA also plans to complete a clandestine laboratory training
facility in Quantico, Virginia to better train more State and local
officers.
DEA has expanded the role of its Clan Lab Enforcement Teams to
target Mexican methamphetamine trafficking organizations. These teams
use their lab expertise to trace chemicals, finished methamphetamine,
and drug proceeds to drug trafficking organizations in the United
States and Mexico. These teams also work to identify and dismantle
U.S.-based methamphetamine transportation and distribution cells.
DEA has also developed an intelligence collection program,
Operation White Fang, to assist in the identification and targeting of
organizations responsible for producing and trafficking methamphetamine
across the entire Southwest Border. The operation focuses particularly
on the groups responsible for the drug related violence facilitated by
the major Mexican cartels operating along the U.S./Mexico border. In
the fiscal year 2008 President's budget, DEA requests $325,000 to
expand this operation.
Question. How has the DEA adjusted its enforcement activities to
meet this threat?
Answer. In addition to the efforts mentioned above, DEA has used a
multi-tiered approach over the last several years to enhance its attack
on the diversion of bulk quantities of key precursors needed to
manufacture methamphetamine, ephedrine, and pseudoephedrine. On the bi-
lateral front, through our offices based in the United States and
overseas, we are making headway by actively targeting, through joint
investigations and initiatives, the diversion of precursor chemicals
and the organizations involved in this activity. On the multi-lateral
front, we are working with relevant international organizations and
engaging both source and transit countries through international forums
to target the diversion of these substances and to promote and
promulgate good practices to prevent their diversion in the future.
In March 2006, the United States successfully sponsored a
resolution at the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND)
that requests countries to provide and share voluntary information
relating to their annual requirements for key methamphetamine
precursors and urges countries to provide information to the
International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) on shipments of these
precursors in both bulk and tablet forms. This data will serve to allow
the international community to observe where potential areas for
diversion of these precursor chemicals are occurring. At present, some
80 nations have provided estimates of their annual licit requirements
for bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to the INCB who in turn will
publish this information on a yearly basis in their annual precursor
report. Importantly, the resolution also requests that countries permit
the INCB to share information regarding suspicious shipments with law
enforcement authorities, so that appropriate measures can be taken in
order to prevent or interdict those shipments of concern.
During a meeting of the CND in March 2007, the United States joined
the European Union (EU) in co-sponsoring an EU-drafted resolution which
contained many useful and potentially important provisions regarding
methamphetamine precursor control. Among other things, the resolution
requests member states to voluntarily recognize the heightened threat
of diversion of ephedra and phenylacetic acid, to exercise increased
vigilance regarding their movement, to apply available monitoring
measures regarding the trafficking of non-controlled derivatives and
substitute chemicals, and to develop further national guidelines and
training programs in consultation with industry with respect to
precursor chemical control.
While theses resolutions on precursor chemical control are
important steps, they are voluntary measures which will take several
years to be fully implemented and, as such, we do not see them as the
sole solution to our obtaining information regarding diversion of these
precursors from licit trade. We do see the CND resolutions as important
steps in the sharing of information to which, heretofore, we were not
privy.
Question. Would you explain the toxic and environmental challenges
that DEA agents face when they find these labs?
Answer. Clandestine drug laboratories are a unique law enforcement
challenge to DEA agents, our State and local law enforcement
counterparts, and any peripheral support personnel providing assistance
to the investigation and dismantlement of a lab. Methamphetamine's
addictive characteristics produce devastating effects on all of its
victims. These victims are not limited to those who choose to use this
poison, but include others who become part of what could be considered
the drug's ``collateral damage''. Those who suffer the ``second-hand''
effects of meth include the victims of methamphetamine-related crimes,
innocent children whose homes have been turned into toxic clandestine
lab sites, law enforcement officers who work with the hazardous
materials found at lab sites, and the environment from the
approximately five pounds of toxic waste produced for every pound of
methamphetamine cooked.
Poisons and other highly toxic materials are often used in the
illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine. The potentially hazardous
elements that agents face when addressing a clandestine lab may include
corrosive chemicals in combination with flammable chemicals. The
corrosives may be both acidic and caustic in nature and in liquid,
solid, or gas form. Aside from the volatilization of acids and solvents
due to the introduction of heat, other more lethal compounds may be
created at various stages in the clandestine production process.
Chemical reactions between these ingredients may also generate reaction
by-products that present a significant toxic danger. Additionally, the
fire and explosion hazards in clandestine lab environments are
considerable as a result of the solvents used in the chemical
processing and extraction of the methamphetamine.
During clandestine laboratory investigations, aside from evidence
collection, DEA and law enforcement in general only dismantle and
remove the chemicals, glassware, and apparatus. Law enforcement
conducts only gross contaminant remediation and virtually no site
decontamination. Currently, no national standards for remediation and
decontamination exist. However, the U.S. House of Representatives
recently passed legislation to change this. The legislation charges the
Environmental Protection Agency with the development of guidelines to
assist State and local authorities in cleaning up former
methamphetamine lab sites.
financial investigations
Question. Administrator Tandy, when we met earlier this year we
discussed the fact that Americans spend up to $65 billion annually on
illegal drugs. DEA is making a renewed effort to go after the cash
profits in the drug business. You stressed in our meeting that DEA is
looking at the drug trade as a business and attacking the flow of drug
proceeds with financial and money laundering initiatives.
Can you tell the Committee more about what you are doing in these
financial investigations?
Answer. DEA has set a five-year plan that by fiscal year 2009 we
will be taking $3 billion per year away from all drug trafficking
organizations (DTOs). The cumulative targets over five years total $10
billion. In just the first two years we have denied traffickers $3.5
billion in revenue. We count not only the money and property seized,
but also the value of the drugs seized--that is the amount of funds
invested in the drugs by the owner computed at production cost levels,
which are very conservative.
To accomplish these goals, DEA makes use of its authority to
conduct undercover operations, known as Attorney General Exempted
Operations (AGEO), which employ sensitive activities delineated by the
Department of Justice (DOJ). In order for DEA to participate in these
undercover money laundering investigations, the operation must undergo
review by the Sensitive Activities Review Committee (SARC) and be
approved by both the DEA Administrator and by a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General of DOJ's Criminal Division.
There are two possible types of SARC approved operations. The first
is a Shelf Account operation. This operation enjoys the authority to
establish undercover corporations and to open related undercover bank
accounts to assist in ongoing narcotics investigations. A DEA office
may then conduct transactions with a cap of $1.5 million.
The second type of SARC approved operation is a Full Exemption.
This type of operation allows for the establishment of an undercover
corporation and bank account, but also affords the operation the use of
any commissions collected to offset reasonable undercover expenses and
to enter into an undercover lease of property. These types of
investigations allow DEA Special Agents, acting in an undercover
capacity the ability to infiltrate drug organizations through the use
of financial transactions.
Both types of operations are approved for a period of six months,
each must call DEA's Office of Financial Operations (FO) in advance of
any undercover pickup for a FO transaction number for tracking purposes
and to assure FO that they have received prior approval from the DEA
Country Attache (CA) from any affected foreign office. The individual
CA approval will also include documentation of the U.S. Ambassador and
host counterpart's prior approval as well. All three approvals must be
secured before any enforcement activity takes place in the foreign
country, to include the wire transferring of funds which have been
laundered, thus insuring compliance with DEA's Memorandums of
Understanding with the Department of State as well as the host
government counterparts. Each of the operations must also submit
monthly statistical reports and undergo onsite inspections every six
months.
A Fully Exempted operation will have a cap of $10 million, which
may be increased upon a written request with an appropriate
justification to the SARC committee. Each Fully Exempted operation must
also be target specific, precluding DEA from operating open ended
umbrella operations. Before extensions are granted for Fully Exempted
operations, a review of the operation's arrests, seizures, and Title
IIIs (lawful communications intercepts) conducted during the current
reporting period are taken into consideration.
Question. How do drug cartels get their cash profits out of this
country and how is the DEA dealing with this threat?
Answer. According to current estimates from the National Drug
Intelligence Center, between $13 billion and $47 billion per year in
drug trafficking profits leave the United States, mostly in the form of
bulk currency, bound for international sources of supply. The smuggling
of large sums of cash across our borders is the primary method used to
expatriate drug proceeds from the United States. To target this flow of
cash, DEA has initiated the following national financial initiatives:
The Bulk Currency Initiative, a Special Enforcement Operation,
coordinates all U.S. highway interdiction money seizures to develop the
evidence needed to identify, disrupt, and dismantle large-scale
narcotic trafficking organizations. When DEA is notified of a cash
seizure by a State or local municipality, agents respond to the scene,
assist with debriefing the defendants, and coordinate potential
controlled deliveries of currency. Special Agents also assist in
follow-up investigations, seizure and forfeiture of currency, and
provide guidance on federal prosecution. DEA's El Paso Intelligence
Center (EPIC) conducts research and analyzes evidence and intelligence
relating to PTOs and other types of investigations.
The Bulk Currency Initiative is aimed at assisting in the
development of new investigations pertaining to seizures of large
amounts of United States currency, as well as linking these seizures to
ongoing drug investigations. This initiative endeavors to bring
together all of the information and intelligence from existing
interdiction programs through cooperative and collaborative sharing of
information between federal, State, and local initiatives, and includes
currency seizures made on United States highways through the highly
successful Operation Pipeline program, and currency seizures made at
various United States commercial airports through Operation Jetway.
Additionally, DEA relies on its extensive foreign operations apparatus
to identify instances where bulk United States currency is introduced
into a foreign country's local economy.
The Bulk Currency Initiative attempts to coordinate investigations
that will be initiated in the field and assist in obtaining evidence
and intelligence that may be shared among the various DEA field
divisions. The DEA has found that the transportation of large amounts
of United States currency from within the United States to various
border locations continues to be one of the primary methods utilized by
large scale trafficking organizations to launder narcotics proceeds.
After arrival at any of the numerous border crossing points throughout
the United States, this bulk currency is easily transported into a
foreign country where it can be placed into the financial system with
less risk of detection or reporting to law enforcement authorities, and
eventually be utilized for a variety of illegal purposes. This movement
of bulk cash presents an opportunity for law enforcement entities to
disrupt an important facet of the narcotic trafficking process.
The Concealment Trap Initiative, a Special Enforcement Operation
program, targets those vital service providers who build concealed trap
compartments in conveyances and residences for DTOs. The initiative has
a two-fold objective. The first is to identify, prosecute, and/or gain
the cooperation of the trap builders to identify the DTOs for whom they
have previously built concealed traps. The second is, through the use
of these cooperators and/or DEA Special Agents who have already been
specially trained in the art of building concealment traps, to offer to
build traps or provide trapped out vehicles (within the legal
framework). These traps will have installed tracking devices to enable
law enforcement to monitor the movement of these vehicles. These
trapped vehicles will act as pointers to identify stash houses or
locations where drugs and money are picked up and dropped off. Once
these locations are identified, surveillance, controlled deliveries,
communications intercepts, and other investigative techniques will
enable the investigators to identify and seize millions in additional
drug proceeds. Interdiction stops of vehicles using independent
probable cause, with no reference to DEA's current investigation, will
also be performed whenever possible. The vehicle with a concealed
compartment will also be used to track bulk currency shipments back to
the source of the drugs.
Operation Highwire, a Special Enforcement Operation program, funds
undercover sting operations targeting money remitters and others who
offer money laundering services. Operation Highwire focuses on
individuals involved in laundering drug proceeds through money remitter
companies or individuals providing remitter-like services. DEA is
targeting the finances of drug trafficking organizations operating
along the Southwest Border, in the transit zone, and in source
countries. DEA is also expanding financial investigations beyond the
Western Hemisphere. Through its presence in Afghanistan, Dubai, and the
surrounding region, DEA is targeting the flow of drug revenue suspected
of financing terrorist activities. For example, DEA is developing
intelligence on Afghanistan-based Hawaladars.
The Hawala system is the principal method through which money is
moved from, to, and throughout Afghanistan. Hawala is an established
and accepted facet of the licit Afghan financial services industry.
Legitimate Hawala brokers exist in Afghanistan and throughout the
Islamic world. Afghan legislation requires hawalas to register with and
be regulated by the Government of Afghanistan. The underground system
thrives particularly due to the dearth of a legitimate banking industry
in country. Approximately eleven banks have opened in Afghanistan since
the fall of the Taliban. To date, these banks enjoy only a small
portion of business typically reserved for banks. In zero sum fashion,
Hawaladars often replace existing banks as providers of financial
services. The principal service provided by Hawaladars is the transfer
of money from one place to another. That traditional service does not
preclude others, such as: currency exchange, check cashing,
safeguarding of monies (i.e. acceptance of deposits), and other
services. Moreover, it is believed that a significant percentage of
Hawaladars also work in the import/export field.
By working closely with our host nation counterparts, such as the
Counter Narcotics Police-Afghanistan, DEA enjoys the access it needs to
learn how traditional systems like Hawala operate. This knowledge,
combined with DEA's institutional expertise in international drug
investigations and drug intelligence will allow DEA to demonstrate that
the Hawala system is not invulnerable. DEA's initial objective is to
identify illicit money remitters operating in Afghanistan, and the
Hawaladars with whom they work worldwide.
Specific attention will be paid to identifying linkages to the
United States. Acquisition of Hawaladar identifying information such as
telephone/cell phone contact information, names, and possibly addresses
will be the first step towards homing in on those involved with drug
money laundering and with the provision of financial services to
terrorists. Hawala transaction data is obtained through various means.
Some is obtained through arrests and/or the execution of search
warrants by DEA's foreign counterparts, who share the data with us.
Communication intercept operations also yield hawala transaction data.
Hawaladars in the United Arab Emirates are required by the government
to file suspicious activity reports and to make their books available
for inspection. Afghan authorities are implementing similar measures.
Frequently, legitimate hawaladars form guild-like organizations,
generally referred to as Hawala Unions, which set and enforce business
standards and guarantee customers' rights. The Afghan government has
established liaison relationships with a number of these unions in
furtherance of developing market watch intelligence. Upon
identification of a hawaladar participating in illicit activity,
operational personnel will pass communications and other identifying
information to the DEA's Special Operations Division and OCDETF's
Fusion Center for exploitation. Between DEA, FBI, and other U.S.
government database checks, and SOD communications exploitation, those
Hawaladars determined to be involved with narcotics trafficking and/or
terrorism will become potential targets of investigation.
The Money Trail Initiative (MTI) is a Special Operations Division
(SOD) supported multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency, Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) initiative targeting various DTOs
that attempt to avoid law enforcement detection by smuggling multi-
million dollar amounts of U.S. currency within and out of the United
States to further their criminal enterprises. The MTI includes attempts
to identify new bulk currency smuggling techniques and has already
demonstrated a tangible impact from several operations. To date,
$126,098,915 in cash and $22,667,016 in assets have been seized. A
total of 14,719 kilograms of cocaine, 161,447 pounds of marijuana, 538
kilograms of methamphetamine, 300 pounds of ice, and 35 kilograms of
heroin have been taken off the streets under this initiative. The MTI
involves the coordination of national bulk currency wire tap
investigations and employs a ``Follow-The-Money'' strategy that enables
domestic and Mexico-based DEA offices to utilize a more systematic and
proactive approach to respond to techniques and trends in bulk currency
operations. Through a coordinated operation, agents track the movement
of currency forward to intended recipients and backward from the
couriers to identify the breadth and scope of the DTOs that generate
money. The MTI allows investigators to identify the money and drug
transportation coordinators, couriers, and facilitators that are often
shared between multiple DTOs.
DEA Financial Investigative Teams focus on the flow of drug
proceeds and how they can be identified and seized. While DEA will lead
these efforts, they will involve cooperation with our federal, State,
local, and foreign counterparts.
The National Trucking Initiative, a Special Enforcement Operation
program, is aimed at assisting in the development of relationships
between DEA and the United States trucking industry. This will allow
DEA access to the industry's assets and intelligence, which will assist
DEA in disrupting the method for transporting drug proceeds via rogue
trucking companies or transportation groups, in collaboration with
several major truck lines.
The License Plate Reader (LPR) Initiative combines the DEA, HIDTA,
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) database capabilities with
new technology to identify, interdict, and/or develop intelligence on
conveyances being utilized to transport drugs and bulk cash. DEA has
implemented capabilities to exploit data collected from the LPR in
Texas where the DEA Houston Division Office is currently operating LPRs
in Falfurrias and Laredo. Use of the data from LPRs will be expanded
nationally as funding becomes available. DEA exploits data collected
from the LPR devices to tip-off DEA and other law enforcement agencies
to suspect vehicles moving both to and from the Mexico border and
identify conveyances being utilized to transport drugs and bulk
currency. This is accomplished using the El Paso Intelligence Center as
the recipient of all tactical requests. In addition, DEA has set an
internal requirement to determine what strategic value and uses are
being gained from the program to assure the program is best utilized.
Once the proper network is funded, LPR data will be funneled to the
OCDETF Fusion Center where it will be used for a comprehensive
analytical research project.
In the Fiscal Year 2007 Global War on Terror Supplemental, DEA
requested and received $3,000,000 in non-personnel funding for
Financial Investigations to support a proactive attack on the financial
infrastructure of drug trafficking organizations operating in
Afghanistan and within the region to help prevent Afghanistan from
becoming a narco-terrorist state. This funding will support two
initiatives: the first is an operation to develop a precise
understanding of the Hawala system, and the second is to establish an
ongoing, coordinated, regional Financial Investigation Training
Program. The training program is being done in conjunction with the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, and on a country by
country basis with pertinent Operation Containment allies.
Question. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, the Departments of Treasury
and Homeland Security administer a number of enforcement activities and
regulatory restrictions on money remitters. How are you collaborating
with these Departments to jointly stop the flow of money?
Answer. Money remitters are classified as Money Service Businesses
(MSB) under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). As a MSB, money remitters fall
under the Currency Transaction Report (CTR) filing requirements of the
BSA. IRS is designated as the regulatory monitoring authority for MSBs
for BSA regulatory compliance. Additionally, IRS-Criminal Investigation
(CI) has sole jurisdiction over the enforcement of the CTR reporting
requirements. Since both domestic and international drug trafficking
organizations exploit the vulnerabilities of the money remitting
industry, DEA works very closely with the IRS on both case specific and
industry-wide programs relating to money remitters. DEA also works with
DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on case specific matters
involving money remitters when the facts of the case involve the cross
border transmission of drug money. For example, a DEA group is assigned
to the ICE-led El Dorado Money Laundering Task Force in New York.
In addition to the flow of money through MSBs, it is likely that
each year $8.3 billion to $24.2 billion in Mexican and Colombian
wholesale drug proceeds generated in the United States are moved into
Mexico via bulk cash smuggling by vehicles.\4\ To combat this illicit
drug money transiting the Southwest Border (SWB) into Mexico, DEA field
divisions along the border are actively working with Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), ICE, and IRS-CI on proactive investigations and money
flow initiatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center
(2006). Prepaid Stored Value Cards: A Potential Alternative to
Traditional Money Laundering Methods. Assessment, Product No. 2006-
R0803-001, 9 pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--DEA, ICE, and IRS-CI all participate in the Texas Department of
Public Safety (DPS) Post Seizure Analysis Team in Austin,
Texas.
--DEA, ICE, and the Arizona DPS are working together on a large
multi-jurisdictional investigation targeting the DTOs utilizing
concealed traps to transport money throughout the United States
and into Mexico.
--DEA is working very closely with the Treasury Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC) through real-time access to sensitive
case related intelligence to assist OFAC in its Kingpin and
Tier II designation of Mexican drug traffickers and their
associated entities.
--ICE and CBP are working with DEA's Houston Field Division on
investigations into Mexican drug trafficking organizations
responsible for sending thousands of kilograms of cocaine and
methamphetamine into the United States, and tens of millions of
drug dollars back to Mexico.
--ICE is working with the DEA Phoenix Field Division and Arizona DPS
on initiatives aimed at interdicting the flow of bulk cash
across the SWB. For example, the Arizona Money Trap Initiative
was designed by the Phoenix Field Division to form a
partnership with the various federal, State, and local law
enforcement entities in Arizona. This partnership attacks as
many facets as possible of the transportation and smuggling of
bulk currency across the State. At the core of the initiative
is the concept that information from various cash seizures will
be shared, and acted upon by the member entities in a
coordinated manner The initiative has several ongoing cases.
--EPIC, through its new National Seizure System (NSS), will act as a
central repository for bulk cash interdiction intelligence
information. ICE has tentatively agreed to place its bulk cash
information in the NSS.
--ICE and IRS-CI are participating agencies at the DEA Special
Operations Division (SOD). SOD coordinates DEA's largest and
most sensitive investigations on drug money flow across the
SWB. As participants at SOD, both ICE and IRS-CI have access to
the SOD databases for deconfliction and coordination of their
money flow investigations with DEA's.
--DEA and CBP are working on a number of initiatives aimed at fusing
intelligence to identify and interdict money flowing across the
SWB by and on behalf of DEA targets of investigation. DEA and
CBP Headquarters are working with the Fusion Center to test the
LPR program by combining indices from each organization. DEA
and CBP are also working in Texas on the Divisional use of the
LPR system. Additionally, DEA and CBP are working at the
Headquarters level in the trial stages of using CBP
international parcels data to target and interdict bulk
currency and other contraband being shipped via parcels out of
the United States.
--IRS-CI is assisting the DEA Las Vegas District Office in the
follow-up investigation of the recent seizure of $207 million
in Mexico City from a supplier of precursor chemicals used in
the production of methamphetamine.
internet
Question. Drug traffickers, like virtually every other industry,
legal or illegal, use the internet to conduct business.
What is the DEA doing to attack this problem?
Answer. The Internet is the fastest growing source of diverted
controlled pharmaceuticals. DEA is working hard to attack this problem
on many fronts:
--DEA has provided all field divisions with undercover credit card
accounts in order to make online purchases of controlled
pharmaceuticals for use as evidence in Internet investigations.
--From October 2002 through December 2006, a total of 3,924
individuals (3,327 federal participants and 597 State and local
participants) have completed DEA's online investigations
training program. This training is provided to DEA Special
Agents, Diversion Investigators, and Intelligence Analysts, as
well as State and Local Task Force Officers.
--DEA's Online Investigations Project is used to provide Whois
(registration information relative to domain names) and trace
route information on suspect websites that might be illegally
distributing controlled substances and link them to other
associated websites.
--In order to identify and shut down Internet pharmacies violating
the Controlled Substances Act, DEA's Diversion Control Program
is using all regulatory tools possible, including
Administrative Inspection Warrants, registration suspensions,
and criminal/civil charges.
--DEA is using the Automated Reports and Consolidated Order System
(ARCOS) to identify high volume purchasers of narcotic
controlled substances and to determine which retail pharmacies
and practitioners are most likely involved in the illicit
distribution of controlled substances over the Internet.
--In August 2005, DEA began its Distributor Initiative Program. Since
that time DEA has been meeting with representatives of the
pharmaceutical industry to educate them on the issue of illegal
diversion via the Internet. Through this program DEA has sought
the cooperation of the distributors of controlled
pharmaceuticals to increase their due diligence in order to
prevent further diversion of controlled substances. As a result
of this program, 24 distributors working out of 129
distribution outlets have voluntarily stopped selling or
voluntarily restricted sales of controlled substances to
hundreds of domestic pharmacies that were attempting to make
suspicious orders from the distributors. Each distribution
outlet is registered with DEA and each can loose its
registration independently of the other outlets.
--DEA has worked with Internet search engines such as Google, AOL,
and Yahoo to create links to DEA's Diversion Website. These
links are designed to appear when consumers attempt to buy
controlled substances online without the requisite medical
exams and prescriptions. In 2005 and 2006, these links appeared
more than 72.9 million times.
--DEA has initiated over 218 investigations of online sales of
controlled substances without a prescription through the end of
fiscal year 2006. DEA initiated an additional 11 investigations
during the first quarter of fiscal year 2007.
--As a result of Internet investigations, DEA seized approximately
$30 million in cash, bank accounts, property, and computers
during fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2005, Internet
investigations resulted in $34.5 million in seizures, a 190
percent increase over fiscal year 2004 ($11.9 million).
Internet investigations have resulted in the seizure of $13
million during the first quarter of fiscal year 2007.
--DEA has developed a close working relationship with Internet
Service Providers (ISPs), Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
providers, and email providers from around the world to include
Microsoft, Vonage, Google, Time Warner, and AT&T. These
providers have supplied DEA with a secure method to deliver
data from the provider to DEA field agents for an immediate
enforcement response.
--DEA routinely meets with other members of the law enforcement
community from around the world. DEA has built an extensive
cooperative relationship with other federal agencies to include
FBI, Secret Service, ICE, and the U.S. Marshals Service. With
the cooperation of these federal counterparts, DEA is able to
leverage unparalleled engineering expertise for the design and
implementation of technical solutions that ensure law
enforcement's ability to lawfully intercept emerging
technologies.
--DEA implemented a Technology Working Group (TWG) to address
technical issues associated with Internet intercepts. The TWG
routinely meets with members of the Internet industry and
becomes educated on new technologies that could affect DEA,
either positively or negatively. The TWG gathers and reviews
reports from our field offices that discuss technologies and
the obstacles associated with these technologies. The TWG
follows up with the respective field agents to become more
familiar with the technologies and how they effect DEA's
operations. If the collected intelligence needs to be
disseminated to additional sections within DEA or the law
enforcement community, the TWG is responsible for ensuring that
data is disseminated appropriately.
--In 2005, DEA hosted interagency meetings with executive level
representatives from over two-dozen corporations in three key
industry groups (Internet, express parcel delivery, and
financial) used by Internet pharmaceutical traffickers. Since
those meetings, DEA has developed progressively closer working
relationships with the leading corporations in each industry
sector and has coordinated interagency outreach to these same
corporations. These industry relationships are intended to: (1)
promote information sharing within the private sector and with
DEA to proactively identify and target major Internet
controlled pharmaceutical traffickers; and (2) identify and
share best practices across industry groups to more effectively
deny the use of business services by Internet controlled
pharmaceutical traffickers.
Question. Given the large number of new encrypted communication
devices entering the market, how does DEA stay up with this evolving
technology?
Answer. The use of encrypted communications by drug trafficking
organizations is becoming more prevalent. To counter this, DEA is an
active participant in a number of technology working groups and
routinely meets with law enforcement and intelligence agencies from
around the world to discuss intercept solutions for emerging encryption
devices. DEA also employs a highly specialized staff of engineers that
test, develop, and evaluate solutions to defeat or minimize the impact
of encrypted communications in use by criminal organizations.
DEA's Office of Investigative Technology, is responsible for the
design, development, and implementation of technical solutions for the
lawful intercept of Internet-facilitated communications utilized by
drug trafficking organizations. However, the complexity and costs of a
single data network intercept is often overwhelming for law
enforcement. Furthermore, traditional technologies available to law
enforcement for data network intercepts are vulnerable to organizations
that utilize multiple access points for data communications or encrypt
their communications using high level encryption protocols.
In the fiscal year 2008 President's budget, DEA requests $1,000,000
to improve and expand its Internet investigative technologies to combat
the evolving methods used by drug trafficking organizations. This
funding will be used to develop and purchase intercept solutions for
emerging Internet technologies, including data intercept solutions that
can be placed on a targeted computer to covertly capture all
communications authorized by a Title III court order. Since the
intercept solution actually resides on a subject's computer, mobility
of a target that accesses the Internet through multiple service
providers can be overcome. Also, encrypted communications can be
intercepted as the software is able to capture communications in their
unencrypted state, rather than when they are in transit and secure.
Ongoing investigations limit DEA's ability to provide specific
details on the methods and use of this encrypted communication
technology. However, this enhancement will provide DEA with the
technical capacity to address certain types of communications that
cannot be intercepted through conventional methods. The challenge
facing DEA on these ongoing investigations is that the drug trafficking
organizations increasingly communicate by means of encryption among
their associates regarding transportation, distribution routes, and
money laundering activities. To make it more difficult, some of these
encrypted email service providers and peer-to-peer communication
networks are foreign based companies not subject to our laws.
Therefore, the inability of domestic law enforcement to exploit these
encrypted communications has allowed the criminal organizations to
operate with impunity and prohibit the intercept from realizing its
full investigative potential.
There are several ongoing investigations that have been adversely
impacted by the use of encryption by the targeted organizations. For
example, drug trafficking and money laundering organizations have
directed members of their organization to use encrypted email service
providers and peer-to-peer communication networks to facilitate,
organize, and conduct criminal acts. Drug traffickers have also learned
to converse over the Internet and on their cell phones using one or
more encrypted methods. These methods range from sending and receiving
calls, sending instant messages, and viewing information over an
encrypted email service and/or peer to peer communication network.
Additionally, the drug trafficker or money launderer has the ability to
use a cell phone or computer device with minimal knowledge, identity,
and cost.
Question. In your testimony, Administrator Tandy, you identify a
problem with online pharmacies. What are the challenges these online
drug stores present to the DEA?
Answer. The illicit trafficking of controlled pharmaceuticals has
been facilitated by the wide use of the Internet and the anonymity it
provides. The existence of readily available drugs on the Internet is a
great concern because of the potential for abuse and the potential
safety issues that revolve around what is largely an unregulated
process. A July 2006 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector
General report states, ``The increase in the diversion of controlled
pharmaceuticals has coincided with the emergence of the Internet as a
significant source for diverted pharmaceuticals. Hundreds of Internet
pharmacies have been established through which large amounts of
pharmaceuticals can be easily purchased with a credit card and without
a prescription.'' \5\ Much of the problem revolves around third-party
businesses operating websites that facilitate a doctor's ability to
write, and a pharmacy to fill, numerous prescriptions without a face-
to-face visit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Follow-Up Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's
Efforts to Control the Diversion of Controlled Pharmaceuticals. DOJ,
Office of the Inspector General, July 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA investigations indicate the Internet is the fastest growing and
one of the largest sources of diverted controlled substances. The
volume of controlled substances being diverted by a single rogue
pharmacy dispensing via the Internet poses a major threat. For example,
in fiscal year 2006, DEA identified 34 known or suspected rogue
pharmacies dispensing controlled substances via the Internet.
Cumulatively, these pharmacies dispensed 98,566,711 dosage units of
hydrocodone-based products in 2006. It would take 1,118 legitimate
pharmacies to dispense the same amount of hydrocodone-based products as
these 34 rogue Internet pharmacies did in 2006.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Source: ARCOS data. In 2006, the average U.S. pharmacy
dispensed 88,178 dosage units of hydrocodone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online investigations also require more resources than traditional
diversion investigations because a large amount of data is retrieved
and processed during online investigations. For example, Internet
online pharmacy cases require a cadre of highly skilled engineers to
develop customized intercept solutions. On average, a major online
investigation conducted by DEA costs $1.5 million (including salaries
and operational costs) and requires 27,800 work hours (based on five
recent major online investigations). In comparison, a typical diversion
investigation costs $220,000 and requires 3,800 work hours. However,
online investigations may not require the same amount of resources as
large non-diversion cases with extensive Title III investigations. For
example, the recent Operation Three Hour Tour cost $2.4 million and
required 48,000 work hours.
One lawful intercept or Title III can reveal hundreds to thousands
of users. Operation CyberRX was one of DEA's largest Internet
intercepts and intercepted over 6,500 individuals purchasing
pharmaceuticals illegally. The volume of data collected during this
investigation required the deployment of additional resources. As a
result, the Fort Worth Resident Office has seized over $19 million in
cash and assets and 19 individuals were arrested.
Finally, online pharmacies that operate outside of the United
States and its territories pose legal and technical issues for DEA.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating within the United States
are generally responsive to lawful orders issued by U.S. courts.
However, DEA's regulatory authority and Administrative Subpoena
authority does not extend to the foreign-based ISPs, companies, or
pharmacies. Furthermore, DEA is unable to measure the exact number of
rogue ``pharmacies'' operating outside the United States. A Google
search may reveal thousands upon thousands of ``sites'' that offer
controlled pharmaceuticals however many of these sites are transient
and illusive, taking advantage of the anonymity afforded by the
Internet. Experience has also shown that many of these are referral
sites and are not ones that would ultimately fill an order. It is
usually difficult, if not impossible, to trace where international
sites are physically located. Some investigations have revealed that
the web site may be located in one country, while the ``pharmacy'' is
located in another, and the money is received in yet a third country.
Often times the international ``pharmacy'' is not a pharmacy at all and
the products that are shipped may be diluted or counterfeit substances.
Question. Are there additional legal authorities you need to assist
you in this war?
Answer. The Administration is looking at a wide range of potential
legislative measures. DEA wants to stop the illegitimate online
pharmacies while ensuring that legitimate pharmacies and doctors are
able to effectively use the Internet.
Since the advent of the Internet law enforcement has encountered
numerous obstacles and challenges. The ``Technological Revolution'' has
opened new and evolving legal hurtles never before faced by any
previous generation. Though designed for the benefit of society, the
Internet has allowed criminals the ability to continue their activities
while maneuvering through cyberspace under the cloak of anonymity.
Traditional crimes such as child pornography, identity thefts, drug
diversion, and fraud are able to flourish in cyberspace. Daily, law
enforcement, attorneys, legislators, and the courts are all faced with
new issued brought about by the Internet. Yesterday's laws are often
inappropriate, outdated, or inadequate to deal with crimes that evolve
so quickly. Compounding the problem is the fact that often there are
parallel issues involving the use of the Internet for legitimate and
well intended purposes. It is therefore vital that when laws are
drafted to deal with matters as important as the diversion of
controlled substances that they will withstand the test of time. The
Drug Enforcement Administration is always willing to provide Congress
with whatever technical assistance it can for legislators to determine
what laws they deem appropriate and necessary.
surveillance
Question. The drug cartels are spending millions to overcome your
surveillance, even conducting counter surveillance activities on the
DEA.
What are the cartels doing to make surveillance more difficult?
Answer. DEA has gathered intelligence that traffickers both in the
United States and outside the United States have become more
technologically advanced in an effort to divert law enforcement.
Devices that are used everyday as a secure means of communication pose
a threat to law enforcement and its capability to conduct lawful
intercepts. These devices provide a secure means of viewing and sending
data over a handheld device (such as a Blackberry) via a foreign based
company server. This is further accomplished utilizing proprietary
company software that has the ability to encrypt the data, sent over a
U.S. based cellular provider's network to a recipient's communication
device that contains the proprietary software needed to decrypt the
data. Should U.S. law enforcement intercept this encrypted data
anywhere between the sender and the recipient, we would not be able to
decrypt the communications due to its high level encryption algorithms.
Drug cells operating around the world are aware of the complexity
in conducting intercepts, whether it is on a telephone or a computer.
The availability of wireless ``hotspots'' and cybercafes adds to the
complexity of conducting intercepts because a target is able to utilize
a laptop computer or an Internet enabled device to access the Internet
where he/she can use email, oversee financial assets, and make Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls using multiple Internet Service
Providers (ISPs). Law enforcement does not have the ability to deploy
mobile intercept equipment from ISP to ISP due to the complexity of
these intercepts. However, if intelligence is able to determine a
pattern on a subject's use of the Internet, we can then begin to target
the provider in hopes of deploying an intercept.
The use of VoIP services is becoming more common mainly because of
the low cost of these services. Although DEA is able to intercept VoIP
communications and routinely does so, providers are beginning to offer
features such as encryption and peer-to-peer communications for added
security. One of the most recognizable vendors in this area is Skype
Communications. Skype is free software that is downloaded off of the
Internet which allows for encrypted VoIP and instant messaging
communications between customers that have also downloaded Skype's
software. The communications only require Internet connectivity to
facilitate the communications. The communications are not delivered
through a traditional ISP server but rather each Skype user allows for
the facilitation of communications over a peer-to-peer network. The
data delivery of these communications takes an unpredictable route
making it almost impossible to intercept. Furthermore, if the data was
intercepted it would be in an encrypted format that would be almost
impossible to crack. DEA has also observed several additional email
providers that market their encrypted email features for little or no
charge.
Traffickers transiting the high seas on commercial maritime
vehicles and the Caribbean on go-fast boats also make surveillance
difficult by communicating by satellite telephones. While DEA has used
satellite telephone intercepts and maritime tracking devices to
successfully locate and seize vessels laden with drugs, satellite
telephone intercepts are extremely costly. For example, there are
instances where satellite telephone companies are not CALEA compliant
and DEA must engineer an intercept solution to glean investigative
information.
In the fiscal year 2008 President's budget, DEA requests $3,100,000
for improved satellite telephone and maritime tracking resources, as
well as additional linguist funding and data collection capabilities.
In fiscal year 2008, DEA also requests $2,000,000 for tracking,
sensor, and audio/video surveillance equipment. Surveillance equipment
is particularly crucial in areas such as the Southwest Border (SWB)
because it is a major point of entry with few realistic controls.
Cartels are also building sophisticated encrypted radio networks along
the SWB for command and control. Surveillance equipment, such as remote
cameras, tracking devices, and alarms, are one of the only ways to
cover such an expansive area. DEA field divisions along the SWB employ
a variety of sophisticated audio and video surveillance equipment
including mobile surveillance platforms, digital equipment with
Internet connectivity, mobile x-ray equipment, microwave automated
repeater systems, and scanners for monitoring radio frequencies. Much
of this equipment is a ``force multiplier'' because agents do not need
to be physically present to monitor the surveillance, which enables
them to be more productively used elsewhere.
In regards to counter surveillance, it has become more commonplace
for drug traffickers and drug trafficking organizations to use
sophisticated countermeasures to detect electronic surveillance
signals. The most frequently used countermeasure devices are radio
frequency (RF) detectors, frequency counters, and scanners.
A radio frequency detector identifies devices which transmit RF
signals within the operating parameters of the detector. RF
transmitters used by law enforcement agencies for surveillance purposes
convey audio, video, and data from one location to another. RF
detectors are commonly used by legitimate industry technicians to
locate frequencies, identify unwanted signals, and interference which
contribute to degradation of RF signals. These devices are also used
for more nefarious purposes by criminals for the purpose of identifying
electronic surveillance by law enforcement. RF detectors, from basic
inexpensive types to expensive sophisticated models, are widely
available through Internet vendors as well as stores commonly referred
to as ``spy shops.''
A frequency counter is a device that determines the frequency
emitting from a transmitter. The are two basic types of frequency
counters, one that will determine the exact frequency of analog
transmissions, and one that will determine the exact frequency of
either analog or digital transmissions. A scanner is used to identify
radio emissions in a given area.
RF detectors, frequency counters, and scanners are used in concert
to complete an effective, electronic ``sweep'' of an area for RF
signals. Criminal organizations are known to retain highly paid private
detective firms or other vendors specializing in providing electronic
``sweeps'' of homes, offices, vehicles, or other conveyances and
locations to identify electronic surveillance devices.
Question. What is DEA doing to overcome these obstacles?
Answer. DEA employs a cadre of Engineers and Telecommunications
Specialist to develop, test, and implement technical intercept/
surveillance solutions. The equipment that is utilized to develop these
solutions is very complex and very costly. The skill set these
employees possess is very unique and requires a great deal of training
in order to evolve as quickly as technology dictates.
DEA has also developed minimization software for data intercepts
that enables law enforcement to view or listen to intercepted
communications just as a target would view or listen to it. The
software that is utilized during Internet intercepts is constantly
being updated to conform to the Internet's constantly changing
protocols. DEA provides this software to other federal agencies, as
well as State and local law enforcement agencies.
The ISPs that DEA routinely works with also advise DEA of new
technologies prior to their release to the general public. This enables
DEA to proactively develop solutions which will allow DEA to have
intercept solutions in place should an investigation require them. This
provides minimal turnaround time and allows the data to be expedited to
the field.
Finally, DEA continues to work with industry, the field, and other
federal, State and local agencies to research, develop, and employ both
active and passive surveillance countermeasures.
met program
Question. Administrator Tandy, the Mobile Enforcement Team (MET)
program has proven to be very successful in assisting State and local
law enforcement agencies in addressing their communities' drug threats.
The Budget proposed to eliminate the MET program.
How will DEA respond to requests for assistance from State and
local law enforcement without the MET program?
Answer. MET is not the only DEA program that benefits State and
local law enforcement. In addition to the MET program, DEA leads over
200 State and local task forces, including over 1,600 DEA Special
Agents and over 2,100 State and local task force officers, all of whom
are dedicated full time to address drug trafficking, including
trafficking in our local communities.
Despite the elimination of the MET program, DEA will continue to
work side-by-side with our State and local law enforcement partners by
sharing intelligence and providing training to them. DEA assists State
and local law enforcement in many ways, for example:
--DEA's EPIC Open Connectivity Project provides web-based access to
approximately 1,800 Federal, State, and local partners on an
annual basis. Users can query and access law enforcement data
maintained by EPIC.
--In fiscal year 2006, DEA shared $274 million in State and local
proceeds with State and local law enforcement, a 25 percent
increase over the $219 million shared in fiscal year 2005,
including a 40 percent increase in the funds shared with
Sheriffs. This level of sharing is expected to continue.
--In fiscal year 2006, DEA trained over 41,000 S&L officers,
including over 1,000 in meth lab clean up and training.
--By the end of 2008, DEA plans to complete a clandestine laboratory
training facility to better train more State and local
officers.
united states/mexico collaboration
Question. Administrator Tandy, State and local law enforcement
officers are the ``end-users'' that deal with the drugs and violence
proliferated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Historically,
the government of Mexico has not been a strong ally in addressing this
threat.
What is your assessment on America's current working relationship
with the Mexican government on combating drug trafficking
organizations?
Answer. Under the Calderon Administration, our relationship with
Mexico has experienced unprecedented levels of cooperation and
solidarity in combating drug trafficking organizations. Specifically,
DEA is working hard with the Government of Mexico to target the
criminal organizations involved in the diversion of precursor chemicals
and the producing and trafficking of methamphetamine. Relations between
Mexican authorities and DEA are at an all time high in terms of
chemical control. Mexico has imposed import quotas tied to estimates of
national needs. The Mexican Government limited pseudoephedrine,
ephedrine, and combination product importation permits to 70 tons
during 2006; this is a reduction of 53 percent from the 2005 level of
imports (150 tons). This quota has made it more difficult for
traffickers to obtain precursor chemicals. Prices have increased and
traffickers have been forced to resort to traditional diversion
methods, including smuggling and the use of third countries to procure
their chemicals. In addition, intelligence indicates that traffickers
have also turned to alternate production methods for methamphetamine
and the apparent use of substitute chemicals as the traditional
precursors are becoming more difficult to obtain. Mexico has discussed
revising their quota downward even further in 2007.
In May 2006, at the National Methamphetamine and Chemicals
Initiative (NMCI) Strategy Conference in Dallas, Attorney General
Gonzales announced important new anti-methamphetamine domestic
initiatives, as well as new partnerships between the United States and
Mexico in fighting methamphetamine trafficking. These initiatives will
improve enforcement and information sharing, increase law enforcement
training, and increase public awareness both domestically and
internationally. Since this announcement, methamphetamine enforcement
teams have been formed on both sides of the border and DEA has donated
8 refurbished clan lab trucks to Mexico. Additionally, DEA and DOS/INL
trained over 2,000 Mexican officials in 2006 on a variety of
investigative, enforcement, and regulatory methods related to
methamphetamine trafficking and manufacturing. This training included
instruction on clandestine laboratory investigations, precursor
chemical investigation, and drug identification.
DEA has also expanded the role of its Clan Lab Enforcement Teams to
target Mexican methamphetamine trafficking organizations. These teams
are using their lab expertise to trace chemicals, finished
methamphetamine, and drug proceeds to drug trafficking organizations in
the United States and Mexico. These teams are also working to identify
and dismantle U.S.-based methamphetamine transportation and
distribution cells.
The United States also enjoys an excellent extradition relationship
with Mexico, which has served both countries well in the administration
of justice. In 2006, for the fifth consecutive year, Mexican
authorities extradited a record number of fugitives to the United
States. In 2006, there were 60 extraditions from Mexico to the United
States. Twenty-six of these extraditions were for drug charges,
including 24 Mexican nationals. In 2005, Mexico extradited 41 fugitives
to the United States--up from 34 in 2004.
The new administration of President Calderon has taken a strong,
proactive stance against drug traffickers and the associated violence.
On January 19, 2007, Mexico extradited 15 offenders to the United
States, a significant number of which have U.S. narcotics trafficking
and related charges. Notably, the leader of the Gulf Cartel, Osiel
Cardenas-Guillen, two high-level members of the Tijuana Cartel, two
mid-level members of the Juarez Cartel, and three high-level and two
mid-level members of the Federation were extradited.
DEA works closely with its Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIU) in
Mexico. As of December 31, 2006, the Mexican SIU consists of nearly 300
Federal Investigations Agency, Federal Preventive Police, and SIEDO
(federal prosecutors). Furthermore, during 2006, under DEA direction,
2,161 agents of the AFI and the Policia Federal Preventiva and other
Mexican personnel were trained by DEA and State Department funded
contractors on clandestine laboratories, officer/first responder
safety, and chemical identification. DEA also provided training to both
Mexican prosecutors and law enforcement as part of a month-long course
at the DEA Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia.
The Bilateral Intercept Program is an unparalleled initiative
between DEA and the Government of Mexico which has developed a
comprehensive wire intercept program by utilizing the SOD methodology
of simultaneously targeting international drug trafficking
organizations throughout the United States and Mexico. Early successes
have indicated cooperation between DEA and Government of Mexico will
only continue to expand coordinated law enforcement efforts.
Operations All Inclusive 2005-1 and 2006-1 is another example of
DEA and Government of Mexico cooperation. These operations ran from
August 5, 2005 through October 8, 2005, and March 4, 2006 through April
26, 2006, respectively, and targeted South American source regions,
Eastern Pacific and Western Caribbean vectors of the Mexico/Central
America transit zones, and the Mexico and Central America land mass, by
attacking the drug trade's main arteries and support infrastructure
with innovative, multi-faceted, and intelligence-driven operations.
Both operations exploited the maritime, overland, commercial air, and
private air smuggling vulnerabilities in the movement of drugs, money,
and chemicals. DEA and other federal, State, and host nation law
enforcement and military agencies supported both operational and
intelligence aspects of these operations.
Operation All Inclusive 2005-1 seizure highlights in Mexico include
21.05 metric tons of marijuana, 108 kilograms of cocaine, 35.2
kilograms of heroin, and nearly 1 million tablets of pseudoephedrine.
Of particular importance were two currency seizures at the Mexico City
Airport totaling $8.7 million. One seizure totaling $7.8 million, which
was eventually linked to members of the Mexican ``Federation,'' is the
largest currency seizure to date at the Mexico City International
Airport. During this operation, over 46 metric tons of cocaine were
interdicted and seized before they could reach Mexico, where the drugs
are normally broken down into smaller quantities for transshipment
north and to make them more difficult to interdict. Additionally, 3.5
metric tons of cocaine seized from the fishing vessel Vega in the
Eastern Pacific Ocean on August 15, 2005, was linked to Colombian PTO
Herman Vasquez-Sanchez and an alleged Mexico City-based recipient who
were identified through wire intercepts. Operation All Inclusive 2006-1
highlights included the arrest of three pilots and the seizure of a DC-
9 and Dassault Falcon Jet aircraft and 5.6 tons of cocaine at the
Ciudad de Carmen Airport, Campeche, Mexico. Also, nearly 17 metric tons
of marijuana and 10.4 kilograms of heroin were seized. Thirty-eight
metric tons of cocaine were interdicted and seized before they could
reach Mexico.
Question. What does the future hold for increasing DEA-Mexican
cooperation?
Answer. In addition to enforcement assistance and the development
of new enforcement strategies, DEA will continue to offer training to
the Government of Mexico. In fiscal year 2006, under DEA direction,
over 2,000 agents of the AFI and the Policia Federal Preventiva and
other Mexican personnel were trained by DEA and State Department funded
contractors on clandestine laboratories, officer/first responder
safety, and chemical identification.
DEA will also continue to work with the Government of Mexico to
obtain the extradition of high value targets such as occurred on
January 19, 2007; when Osiel Cardenas Guillen, a CPOT and the leader of
the notorious Gulf Cartel which is headquartered in Matamoros, Mexico;
who was responsible for much of the ``narco-violence'' on the Southwest
Border was turned over to the DEA by the Government of Mexico to face
drug charges in U.S. Federal Court.
DEA will also continue working with the Government of Mexico on
future iterations of Operation All Inclusive. Recognizing that the
United States cannot control its borders by merely enforcing the
immediate border, DEA's International Drug Flow Attack Strategy
incorporates a ``defense in depth'' component by attacking the source
and transit zone. This model has successfully been applied
internationally in two deployments and is in the beginning stages of a
third operation (Operation All Inclusive 2007-1). A fourth iteration
focuses on the Southwest Border and is called Operation Doble Via.
Operation Doble Via is a combination of staggered and simultaneous
U.S./Mexico enforcement operations combined with intelligence driven
enforcement operations designed to influence illicit trafficking
patterns and increase disruptions to violent DTOs.
Operation All Inclusive was developed to attack an entire region in
hopes of not simply displacing cartels but eliminating them. Operation
All Inclusive causes major disruption to the flow of drugs, money, and
chemicals between the source zones and the United States. To
effectively combat drug trafficking in Central America, Mexico, and the
transit zone, the United States must maintain a sustained, multi-agency
approach. The DEA focuses on improving the region's counter drug
capabilities through developing personal liaisons with host nation law
enforcement authorities, institution building with host nation
governments, and by attacking the command and control structures of
major drug trafficking organizations.
marijuana
Question. Administrator Tandy, marijuana abuse is one the most
significant drug challenges currently faced by law enforcement
agencies. The majority of domestically cultivated marijuana is being
grown on public lands in our national parks and forests. These
marijuana plots are being aggressively defended by armed Mexican drug
cartels, making our national treasures unsafe for public use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA, FS)
and agencies of the Department of the Interior (DOI) continue to detect
significant increases in marijuana cultivation on federal public lands
nationwide. These findings correspond to reports of expanded domestic
cannabis cultivation and marijuana production. Domestic cannabis
eradication data for 2005 shows the highest level of cannabis
eradication ever recorded. In 2005, 4.2 million plants were seized
compared to 3.7 million in 2003, the next highest level in the years
2000-2005.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Drug Threat Assessment 2007. National Drug
Intelligence Center, U.S. Department of Justice, October 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cultivation of marijuana on public lands is dominated by
loosely organized, poly-drug Mexican drug trafficking organizations
(DTOs) employing illegal Mexican aliens for the production and
distribution of marijuana and methamphetamine nationwide. The violence
and environmental risks associated with this cultivation is growing,
therefore DEA is striving to halt the spread of marijuana cultivation
in the United States by focusing various federal, State, and local law
enforcement efforts towards identifying and dismantling the DTOs
directing and controlling this activity.
Question. What is DEA's strategy to address this growing threat?
Answer. To address this threat, DEA has initiated a public land
working group comprised of affected federal land management agencies.
DEA is examining how best to leverage the available resources of our
federal partners through better sharing of intelligence and targeting
of these DTOs. Critical to this strategy will be the collection and
sharing of intelligence concerning the communications devices and
techniques used by those growing marijuana on our public lands. Federal
land management agencies have confirmed their commitment to sharing
intelligence with DEA. With the intelligence gathered, DEA will
identify and attack the Mexican organizations that direct and control
the cultivation and distribution.
Marijuana cultivation on public lands presents a number of
enforcement challenges, including the need for air support and large
numbers of law enforcement personnel to safely and successfully
accomplish eradication missions. DEA has the mechanisms in place
through the Special Operation Division, the Fusion Center, and the El
Paso Intelligence Center to add value to intelligence from marijuana
enforcement operations on public lands and to coordinate and expand
investigations beyond simple plant eradication to attacking the
controlling DTOs. DEA has offered this established strategy and
available resources to the FS and DOI, as well as additional training
and access to intelligence information.
DEA is also working with the Park Service and Forest Service to
cross-designate selected Park Service and Forest Service law
enforcement officers to work on specific cases with DEA, or to serve on
DEA task forces. Unilateral Title 21 investigations by the DOI or the
Forest Service would lack the coordination necessary to ensure the
safety of law enforcement personnel, and would not permit de-
confliction with other domestic and foreign investigations.
In addition to enforcement efforts, DEA's Domestic Cannabis
Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE-SP) works with our participating
State and local partners to target marijuana wherever it is produced
throughout the United States and its territories, on both public and
private lands. The DCE/SP is an enforcement activity which provides
funding, operational support, and training to participating State and
local agencies. The program strives to halt the spread of marijuana
cultivation throughout the United States and is responsible for the
investigation and eradication of both indoor and outdoor cultivation of
the illicit crop.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
dea nm resources
Question. I believe that the DEA plays a critical role in law
enforcement activities in New Mexico. State and local law enforcement
agencies reap vast benefits while working alongside these federal
agents. I am concerned that the smaller communities in my home state
may not be able to take advantage of these federal partnerships. This
is especially problematic because community population is neither a
variable nor a predictor of drug use.
Can you please explain what type of interaction DEA agents have
with smaller communities and what we might be able to do to ensure that
all our communities benefit by working with federal law enforcement
agents?
Answer. As with all federal agencies, the DEA concentrates the bulk
of its offices and agents in the highest population areas in an attempt
to maximize our efforts and effectiveness. DEA has limited manpower and
resources, as do all other law enforcement agencies throughout the
United States. DEA has found that the most effective method to increase
productivity, improve our responsiveness to State and local agencies,
and ensure that all communities benefit from a federal law enforcement
presence is through the employment of multi-agency task forces. The
task force concept provides several advantages to all participating
agencies: DEA is able to draw on the expertise of State of local law
enforcement; DEA can share resources with State and local officers,
thereby increasing the investigative possibilities available to all;
State and local officers can be deputized as federal drug agents, thus
extending their jurisdiction; State and local participating agencies
can receive an equitable share of forfeited drug proceeds; and DEA can
pay overtime and investigative expenses for the State and local
agencies.
In New Mexico, DEA has two offices located in Albuquerque and Las
Cruces. The Albuquerque District Offices (DO) is staffed with 33
Special Agents (including four supervisory Special Agents). The Las
Cruces Resident Office (RO) is staffed with 17 Special Agents
(including three supervisory Special Agents). The Albuquerque DO and
the Las Cruces RO each support two federally funded multi-agency task
forces. The addition of ten task force officers in Albuquerque and nine
task force officers in Las Cruces provides DEA with a more than 35
percent increase in agent strength, which is subsequently leveraged to
cover a vast area of responsibility. The addition of task force
officers also prompts parent agencies to regularly interact with DEA.
This representation of local community concerns also often promotes the
presentation of cases for extended federal investigation and
prosecution.
Additionally, the State of New Mexico is currently divided into
seven Bureau of Justice Assistance regions. Throughout New Mexico,
State and local law enforcement agencies are provided with federal
funds to organize and implement multi-agency task forces within each
respective region. Again, the task forces permit State and local law
enforcement agencies--within a specific geographic area--to pool
resources and information that consequently maximize effort and
effectiveness. DEA Special Agents are designated by management to
interact with each regional task force. This practice encourages
smaller and more isolated local agencies to interact more meaningfully
with DEA.
Task forces, by their very nature, are designed to facilitate the
exchange of information at the federal, State and local levels. This
information exchange allows for the development, coordination, and
prosecution of targeted members and their criminal organizations. In
order to avoid duplicative efforts, agents and task force officers
routinely rely on the free exchange of information between our State
and local counterparts, coupled with DEA information systems, such as
NADDIS, to identify potential conflicts between competing
jurisdictions. Moreover, current DEA policy mandates that communication
devices suspected to be used by targets in DEA investigations be
checked against DARTS prior to any enforcement operation.
The task force concept has proven to be very successful. In fiscal
year 2006, the New Mexico DEA offices conducted investigations from
Raton to Las Cruces and Gallup to Portales, as well as in nearly every
modestly populated area within proximity. The two DEA offices in New
Mexico initiated 468 cases, effected 659 arrests, and seized over
70,000 pounds of marijuana, 1,898 pounds of cocaine, 159 pounds of
methamphetamine, 16 pounds of heroin, and over 4.5 million in drug
trafficker currency and assets.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
methamphetamine
Question. What is DEA doing about methamphetamine in Alaska?
Answer. DEA's Anchorage District Office (DO) prioritizes its assets
by targeting the highest level drug trafficking organizations (DTOs)
which can be identified in the state of Alaska. Recognizing the
devastation caused by methamphetamine, the Anchorage DO puts forth
considerable effort to combat the methamphetamine problem through a
coordinated strategy that includes a comprehensive interdiction effort,
conducting complex investigations into organizations responsible for
trafficking drugs into Alaska, targeting clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories, conducting methamphetamine training and certification to
State and local counterparts, funding and coordinating all hazardous
waste clean-ups of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, as well as
keeping up a strong demand reduction program that educates youth, bush
villages, and civic groups.
The Anchorage DO is part of the Seattle Field Division (FD).
Historically, Anchorage was a Resident Office (RO) with one GS-14
supervisor and 6 Special Agents (SA), for a total of 7 SA positions.
However, in March 2002, DEA upgraded the Anchorage RO to a DO through
the addition of a second GS-14 supervisor and a GS-15 Assistant Special
Agent in Charge (ASAC), for a total of 9 SA positions. Additionally, in
September 1999, DEA opened a Post of Duty in Fairbanks, Alaska. This
office has two Special Agent positions.
Prior to the March 2002 upgrade, the Anchorage office operated a
Drug Task Force with 5 Task Force Officers (TFOs). The Anchorage DO now
has 7 TFOs. Furthermore, at any given time 10-15 additional State and
local officers are deputized (on a case specific basis) to assist in
major investigations. As of May 2007, 12 State and local officers are
deputized. The Anchorage DO is co-located with the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) Metro Narcotics Unit and the Alaska State Troopers
(AST) Major Offenders Unit (MOU).
DEA intelligence indicates that, in accordance with national
trends, most of the methamphetamine found in communities throughout
Alaska originates from the Southwest Border of the United States. DTOs
following trafficking routes through cities such as Las Vegas, NV,
Tucson, AZ, and Seattle, WA, where the meth is repackaged and
distributed through parcel service to Anchorage. Methamphetamine
wholesale prices in Seattle range from $3,000 to $4,000 per pound
compared to wholesale prices of $18,000 to $20,000 per pound in
Anchorage, making Alaska a lucrative destination.
The Anchorage DO Airport Interdiction Task Force (AITF) covers the
entire State and is supervised and staffed by DEA Special Agents, as
well as AST Investigators, Airport Police Officers, and National Guard
Counterdrug Support Program personnel. It prioritizes resources to stop
drugs as they come into the state of Alaska through interdiction at all
parcel sorting facilities (FedEx, UPS, U.S. Postal Service, etc.), the
Port of Anchorage, and the Anchorage International Airport. The AIFT
has supported several operations in Southeastern Alaska to include a
joint operation with the Southeastern Alaska-Narcotics Enforcement Team
and the U.S. Postal Service targeting the parcel shipping facilities in
Juneau and Ketchikan. Additionally, the AITF targets outgoing flights
to the bush in an attempt to interdict drugs before they arrive in the
villages. The Anchorage DO coordinates these efforts very closely with
State and local counterparts including the AST and the U.S. Postal
Service.
In late 2006, the AITF initiated Operation Dip Net in order to
better coordinate the interdiction efforts of law enforcement agencies,
and to target those facilities/routes of smuggling that result in the
seizure of significant contraband. The identified trends allow
management to better direct law enforcement efforts by physically
placing interdiction officers in the prevailing illicit drug supply
route. Since the inception of Operation Dip Net, 14 pounds of
methamphetamine, over 32 kilograms of cocaine, a half pound of crack
cocaine, nearly 10,000 Ecstasy tablets, and a bottle of liquid LSD have
been seized in Alaska. Additionally, approximately $310,000 in U.S.
currency has been seized, 20 defendants have been arrested, and 23
firearms recovered or seized as a direct result of the interdiction
efforts. Operation Dip Net has also put ``look outs'' on particular
locations with cargo companies.
Due to its highly lucrative nature, methamphetamine can make its
way into distribution cells that distribute retail amounts to local
gangs who further distribute to the user population. To date, there is
no evidence of methamphetamine making its way into Samoan gang
distribution cells from sources originating in Samoa. The Anchorage DO
did seize and subsequently conducted a controlled delivery of four
ounces of methamphetamine to an individual of Samoan decent, however
the methamphetamine had been sent to Alaska from Las Vegas.
______
Questions Submitted to John F. Clark
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
gulf coast task force
Question. Director Clark, for fiscal year 2006, the United States
Marshals Service (USMS) was authorized by Congress to establish a
Regional Fugitive Task Force in Alabama and Mississippi. Just last
week, this Task Force arrested Gerald Campbell who was previously
convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murdering his wife but
escaped in 1978 from the Alabama Department of Corrections. The Gulf
Coast Task Force tracked Campbell down and arrested him after 23 years
on the run.
Mr. Director what is the status of this task force, and can you
tell us about some of the other good work they have accomplished?
Answer. The Gulf Coast Regional Fugitive Task Force (GCRFTF) began
operations on July 1, 2006. It is the sixth RFTF within the USMS. The
GCRFTF expects to be fully operational by the end of fiscal year 2007.
There are five office locations in Alabama: Birmingham, Huntsville,
Montgomery, Mobile, and in the future, Dothan. The Birmingham office
serves as task force headquarters and includes a training center
similar to other RFTFs. There are three office locations in
Mississippi: Oxford, Jackson, and Gulfport.
Supporting the GCRFTF are USMS Technical Operations Group (TOG)
facilities and personnel in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Jackson. There
are 32 USMS positions authorized and all of these positions have been
filled. In addition, 100 investigators from 30 law enforcement agencies
are working in conjunction with the GCRFTF.
Since its inception, the GCRFTF has made a tremendous impact on the
region. Below are the statistics from July 2006 to April 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felony Fugitives Arrested.................................. 1,700
Warrants Cleared........................................... 2,246
Arrested Individuals Wanted for Homicide................... 100
Arrested Individuals Wanted for Sex Offenses............... 471
Arrested Individuals Who Were Not in Compliance with Sex 187
Offender Registry Requirements............................
Firearms Seized............................................ 84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to arresting Gerald Raye Campbell, a convicted murderer
who was wanted for escape from the Alabama Department of Corrections
after 23 years on the run, the GCRFTF has made several significant
arrests. Below are two additional notable arrests during the month of
April 2007:
On April 4, 2007, Jerone Bussey was arrested in Athens, Alabama, by
members of the GCRFTF and officers from the Athens Police Department
(APD). Authorities in Indianapolis, Indiana, wanted Bussey for murder
after he allegedly shot and killed two people with an AK-47 assault
rifle. One of Bussey's alleged victims was seven and one-half months
pregnant at the time of the shooting. USMS investigators in the
Southern District of Indiana developed information indicating that
Bussey fled to the Athens area. The GCRFTF responded by identifying
Bussey's probable location in Athens, and established surveillance. The
GCRFTF, with assistance from marked APD units, conducted a felony stop
on Bussey's vehicle and took him into custody without incident.
On April 11, 2007, Kent Steward, a registered sex offender, was
arrested in Ozark, Alabama, by members of the GCRFTF and officers from
the Ozark Police Department. Authorities in Ozark wanted Stewart for
kidnapping and rape of a minor after he allegedly abducted and sexually
assaulted a ten year old girl. After authorities identified Stewart as
a suspect, GCRFTF established covert surveillance outside his probable
location. When investigators later observed a male subject matching
Stewart's description, they moved in and safely took Stewart into
custody. Stewart has a previous conviction for rape. If convicted,
Stewart faces life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
Question. The Alabama Mississippi Task Force is the 6th such force
created by the USMS. Does the agency have a plan to expand this concept
into other regions of the country?
Answer. USMS Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs) consisting of
``Federal, State and local law enforcement authorities in designated
regions of the United States'' were established by the Presidential
Threat Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-554) to locate and
apprehend fugitives. RFTFs supplement the 85 district-managed, multi-
agency task forces already operating throughout the country. To date,
six RFTFs are in operation and USMS is exploring areas of the country
where RFTFs would have the greatest impact based on the warrant
workload, but there are no immediate plans for additional RFTFs. The
city in parenthesis indicates where the task force headquarters office
is located:
--Capital Area Region (Washington, DC)--in operation.
--Great Lakes Region (Chicago, IL)--in operation.
--Gulf Coast Region (Birmingham, AL)--in operation.
--New York/New Jersey Region (New York, NY)--in operation.
--Pacific Southwest Region (Los Angeles, CA)--in operation.
--Southeast Region (Atlanta, GA)--in operation.
Question. What types of fugitives do these task forces investigate?
Answer. RFTFs target the ``worst of the worst'' fugitives who have
a history of violence. They include murderers, gang members, drug
traffickers, and violent sex offenders. The USMS approach in assisting
state and local agencies with their fugitive warrants has been twofold.
First, the USMS reviews all fugitive warrants to determine their
ability to be executed. During the review process, many warrants are
determined to be unserviceable because of the age of the warrant,
witnesses have disappeared, police officers or agents have retired,
evidence is missing, or the prosecuting attorney dismisses the warrant
upon review. Second, the USMS prioritizes based on the severity of the
charge. Once a warrant is pursued by an RFTF, all resources are brought
to bear to locate and apprehend the fugitive.
adam walsh
Question. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC) estimates that there are approximately 600,000 sex offenders in
the United States that are required to register. As many as 100,000 are
not in compliance with their registry requirements.
How does the passage of the Adam Walsh Act affect the USMS?
Answer. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
directs the Attorney General to use the resources of federal law
enforcement, including the United States Marshals Service (USMS), to
assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who
violate registration requirements. It further provides that sex
offenders who violate registration requirements are deemed to be
fugitives for purposes of the Marshals Service's fugitive investigation
functions, and it provides federal penalties for sex offenders who
violate registration requirements under circumstances supporting
federal jurisdiction (such as interstate travel). See 142 of the Adam
Walsh Act and 18 U.S.C. 2250. The reforms of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act--i.e., title I of the Adam Walsh
Act--generally strengthen the minimum national standards for the sex
offender registration and notification programs of the states and other
covered jurisdictions, and the national database and website system
which make sex offender information obtained under the individual
jurisdictions' programs more widely available to law enforcement and
the public. See generally 72 FR 30209 to 30234 (May 30, 2007) (proposed
National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification
issued by the Attorney General). The Adam Walsh Act reforms increase
the capacity of responsible officials at all levels of government to
track sex offenders effectively following their release into the
community through enhanced registration standards and requirements, and
the USMS serves as the lead federal law enforcement agency in
investigating violations of these requirements and helping to locate
and apprehend non-compliant sex offenders.
Question. How long would it take the Service to fully enforce this
law, and what kind of resources would be required?
Answer. It will take several years to fully enforce this law
because the existing network of sex offender registries must first be
improved and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
must be implemented by all jurisdictions. Most, but not all, states
have some form of registry already in place, however, these registries
are not well integrated with each other or with the National Sex
Offender Registry. In the interim, the USMS has begun a two-part
approach: enforcement and compliance.
With regard to enforcement, the USMS has established the Sex
Offender Investigations Unit at headquarters. A full-time liaison has
been stationed at the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC). The USMS is working with NCMEC to develop and
establish the ``National Sex Offender Targeting Center'' which will:
--Identify and prioritize targets by using analytical tools;
--Aid the USMS and other agencies with investigative leads;
--Provide a valuable data source for state and local agencies;
--Operate a national tip line and web site;
--Provide analytical support to law enforcement;
--Serve as a national point of contact for sex offender registration
issues; and
--Provide a source to share other criminal leads.
Designated Sex Offender Investigations Coordinators have been
identified in all 94 USMS district offices and within the Regional
Fugitive Task Forces. The first 50 coordinators have already been
trained and an additional 150 personnel will be trained by the end of
fiscal year 2007. The USMS is currently establishing contacts with
state, local, tribal, and territorial sex offender registries. At the
same time, the USMS is coordinating efforts with the Department of
Homeland Security's ``Operation Predator'' to ensure that illegal alien
sex offenders are referred to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement for removal.
With regard to compliance, the USMS is planning a media campaign to
educate sex offenders about their registration requirements and the
enhanced penalties for non-compliance, in an effort to encourage them
to register or update their registrations.
Question. How many additional positions are being created in the
USMS to help you track down non-compliant sex offenders?
Answer. The USMS has designated three positions from existing
resources to establish the Sex Offender Investigations Unit at
headquarters, which includes the full-time liaison at NCMEC. Until
additional resources are provided, the USMS will rely on the six
existing Regional Fugitive Task Forces and 85 district-managed task
forces to aggressively pursue unregistered sex offenders and offenders
against children. The USMS is committed to enforcing the Adam Walsh Act
in addition to pursuing fugitives wanted for violent federal and state
crimes.
The fiscal year 2008 President's budget includes a request for 54
positions (including 43 Deputy Marshals), 27 FTE, and $7,845,000 to
begin deploying Deputy Marshals to areas of the country that have large
numbers of non-compliant sex offenders.
marshals d.c. superior court
Question. This Committee is concerned about the health, safety and
security of the U.S. Marshal Service employees at the D.C. Superior
Court. The cellblock and workspace there are below any acceptable
standards and are in desperate need of renovation.
Are you working with the D.C. Courts to fix the U.S. Marshals
Service occupied space at the D.C. Superior Court?
Answer. Yes, the Marshals Service is working with the D.C. Courts
Executive Office on a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to delineate the
responsibilities for repairing and maintaining the space provided to
the USMS in the Moultrie Courthouse. The space provided to the USMS by
the D.C. Courts belongs to the D.C. Government. The MOA between the
USMS and the D.C. Courts will identify responsibilities much in the
same way that tenant/landlord agreements are established.
Question. Does the $10 million that the Senate provided in the
fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill help begin to
alleviate the Superior Court situation?
Answer. The $10 million would provide a short-term remedial
solution until the Executive Office of the D.C. Courts obligates the
resources to make long-term renovation to improve the cellblock
physical infrastructure and USMS office space. Health, safety, and
security improvements in the cellblock and prisoner receiving areas
would have a positive multi-agency impact as this environment is
utilized by the USMS, Metropolitan Police Department, Department of
Corrections, and numerous law enforcement officers who transfer
prisoners to and from USMS custody.
Question. Do you give this subcommittee your commitment to ensure
that the USMS employees at Superior Court are taken care of?
Answer. Yes, the Marshals Service will take the necessary steps to
ensure the health, safety and security of USMS employees at Superior
Court. The majority of administrative personnel, warrant squad, writ
squad, and prisoner coordination section have been relocated to another
building because adequate space was not available in the Moultrie
Courthouse. Remaining USMS personnel who manage court support and
cellblock operations continue to work out of the Moultrie Courthouse
and the USMS continues to request additional space from the Executive
Office of the D.C. Courts to ensure that USMS court operations has
adequate and safe office space. Until additional space is obtained, the
USMS will ensure that personal protective equipment and gear are
supplied so that USMS personnel can operate safely.
Question. Does this workspace meet any Federal standard for health,
safety or security?
Answer. The Marshals Service surveyed the Moultrie Courthouse and
it does not meet GSA, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration), and USMS standards for security, safety and health.
The USMS identified the following as problem areas: vehicle prisoner
loading--sallyport, main detention area--cellblock, main detention
area-fixtures and construction, detention area-processing room, main
cellblock-interview rooms (prisoner) side, detention facilities,
prisoner circulation from cellblock to court floors, courtroom holding
facilities and circulation, support and special purpose space. The USMS
is committed to working with the Executive Office of the D.C. Courts to
ensure that all security, safety, or health issues are addressed in a
manner that is mutually beneficial.
homeland build up
Question. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is in the
process of hiring up to 2,000 new border agents.
How does this escalation in DHS personnel correspond to the
Marshals' responsibilities to produce prisoners for trial and provide
courtroom protection?
Answer. As DHS increases the number of border patrol agents along
the Southwest Border and in other areas of the country, arrests will
increase which will in turn increase the number of detainees in USMS
custody. The USMS average daily prisoner population continues to
increase, particularly in the five districts that comprise the
Southwest Border:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ave Daily Prisoner Population-- 49,400 53,000 56,000
Total...........................
Ave Daily Prisoner Population-- 16,600 17,500 18,700
SWB Only........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the Del Rio suboffice in the Western District of Texas
has an average daily prisoner population of over 2,600. In comparison,
the District of Maryland has just over 450 per day. The three judicial
districts in Alabama combine for just over 600 per day.
Question. How does this hiring at DHS affect the USMS budget?
Answer. As DHS increases its hiring, the impact on the USMS budget
is felt approximately 18 months later. It takes about 18 months for DHS
to recruit, train, and fill its new positions. Once on board, new
border patrol agents begin making arrests which drives up USMS
workload.
Question. How will this affect court operations?
Answer. The immediate impact to court operations is that the USMS
must produce prisoners before magistrate judges for all criminal court
proceedings. Even if these defendants do not reach trial, the USMS is
required to produce them for all attorney interviews, medical trips,
and court-related appearances. This is an enormous strain on USMS
resources because Deputy Marshals must ensure the safety of all judges,
attorneys, witnesses, and the public at all court hearings.
gangs
Question. The increase in gang-related trials around the nation
creates security concerns, not only for members of the judiciary, but
also for witnesses and trial observers. Recent examples include the MS-
13 trials in the D.C. area and the Aryan Brotherhood trials in
California.
How is the Marshals Service tracking violent gangs?
Answer. The USMS uses the combined resources of its six Regional
Fugitive Task Forces and 85 district-managed task forces to investigate
and apprehend violent fugitives which include violent gang members.
Investigative information gleaned from these fugitive cases is
maintained in an automated fashion and is accessible by USMS judicial
security inspectors who are responsible for the operational planning of
high-threat trials. Many of these trials involve violent gangs,
including prison gangs. This information is also used to separate
detainees within the cellblock and on any JPATS air transportation
movements to ensure the safety of Deputy Marshals and other prisoners.
Question. What more could you do if you had additional resources?
Answer. The 2008 President's budget includes a request for 17
additional positions, including 15 Deputy U.S. Marshals, and $5.1
million for high threat trial security. This request will provide surge
capacity that can be deployed to high threat trials throughout the
country. If fulfilled, USMS will have the flexibility to deploy
additional personnel or security resources for trials related to gangs,
terrorism, or any other purpose requiring additional security.
former marshal's daughter heroic efforts in campus shooting
Question. Director Clark, I understand that a former Marshal's
daughter was wounded in the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus
Monday morning. Her heroic efforts saved the lives of her classmates.
Would you tell us about Jim Carney and his daughter Katie's story?
Answer. On April 16, 2007, Katelyn Carney, the daughter of retired
Deputy U.S. Marshal Jim Carney, was shot in the left hand and a second
bullet grazed her head during the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech
University. Ms. Carney and three other students blocked the doorway to
their classroom to prevent the gunman from returning. Ms. Carney is
expected to make a full recovery.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Mikulski. Yes. This subcommittee stands in recess
until next Thursday, April 26, at which time we will take the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. It will be followed the
following week by the EEOC and then we will come back to the
Justice Department.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., Thursday, April 19, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Kohl, Lautenberg, and
Shelby.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MEULLER III, DIRECTOR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Let me mention before we start that, I've
often used the expression that Senators are merely
constitutional impediments for their staffs. And, in the United
States Senate, if it wasn't for the superb staff members of
both Republican and Democratic Senators, we would not be able
to exist in this subcommittee. I've served on most of my years
in the Senate to various integrations.
We've seen some wonderful people here, but Paul Carliner,
who's sitting here to my left, this is his last hearing as
clerk. He's spent 16 years in the Senate, but 8 years on this
subcommittee. Paul is one of the reasons why the rest of us can
do our work. He has shown the ability to reach out to Members
on both sides of the aisle on very difficult things. Everybody
on this subcommittee wants something, usually something
different. And he's the one that's trying to do that. So, Paul,
congratulations to you.
Mr. Carliner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Leahy. And, Director Mueller, thank you for joining
us today to testify before this subcommittee.
I also want to thank the Chair of our subcommittee, Senator
Mikulski, for allowing me to open the hearing on her behalf.
She's going to be joining us shortly, but she's on her way back
from the formal send off for the 1,300 Maryland National
Guardsmen that are going to be deployed to Iraq in the next few
months.
Having attended too many of such events in my own State of
Vermont, I know how hard the send off is for the guardsmen,
their families, and friends, for Senator Mikulski, and all
those attending. And our hearts and prayers are with those
brave Maryland soldiers and all our brave men and women
preparing to leave and our hearts and prayers are with their
families. I hope they come back safely.
Now, I know in the wake of the terrorist attacks, the
Justice Department's focused much of its attention in the
prevention of terrorism and the promotion of national security.
I worry, however, that the budget proposal, if it's enacted, is
going to divert critical resources and staffing from
traditional law enforcement matters. We've seen a spike in
violent crime, which is something I know concerns the Director
very much. And, if we shift money into counterterrorism, we
take it away from traditional criminal matters.
The fiscal year 2008 budget requests a realignment of 100
criminal agents, counterterrorism work. That would leave
traditional criminal law enforcement significantly understaffed
in the Bureau. If you realign these agents further it may
further erode the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI)
ability to combat violent crime. It has been cited by the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) as one of the top management
challenges at the Justice Department.
And, since the FBI announced the Virtual Case File
successor, the Sentinel Program, I really have not been
confident of the Bureau's ability to manage the status and cost
of this project. The FBI estimates that Sentinel will
ultimately cost the American taxpayers $425 million. A December
2006 OIG audit questioned the reliability of the total
estimated cost of the program. It was originally expected the
full Sentinel system would be deployed in 2009. Recently,
however, we hear a familiar piece of news regarding the FBI's
computer upgrade project. Apparently there will be delays in
the deployment of phase one of the Sentinel upgrade, which
jeopardizes the schedule for this much-needed computer system.
And, I worry--as one baseball great once said, it's deja vu
all over again--we tried Trilogy, we scrapped that. We were
told that Virtual Case File would meet the FBI's needs and
that's been scrapped. Now that delays in Sentinel have been
announced, is not clear at all the third time's going to be the
charm. It's been an expensive series of lessons, costing nearly
$423 million for these programs so far.
Another recent report by the Office of Inspector General
found the FBI can't account for 160 laptop computers, and an
equal number of weapons that were lost or stolen over a 3\1/2\-
year period. And, this comes 4 years after a recommendation
that they take steps to ensure the security of this equipment.
And, even more troubling, in many cases, it was found the FBI
could not even determine whether these lost or stolen computers
contained classified or sensitive information, putting Bureau
employees and other individuals at risk of becoming victims of
identity theft.
I am deeply troubled by, as I've discussed with the
Director and I know of his concern in this, the OIG's report
finding widespread illegal and improper use of national
security letters. We had a hearing on this in the Judiciary
Committee.
So, we're at a crossroads. And, I think if we don't learn
from the mistakes, progress won't be made.
I'll put my full statement in the record. It's quite a bit
longer.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Director Mueller, welcome and thank you for joining us today to
testify before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and
Science regarding the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. You and I get to see each other from time-to-
time when you come before the Judiciary Committee for oversight
hearings. Today, however, I am here wearing my appropriator's cap and I
look forward to hearing you make the case for the budget the President
has proposed for the FBI in the coming year.
I also want to thank the chair of our subcommittee, Senator
Mikulski, for allowing me to open this hearing on her behalf. She will
be joining us shortly, but is on her way back from the formal send-off
of the 1,300 Maryland National Guardsmen who will be deployed to Iraq
in the next few months. Having attended several such events in my own
home state of Vermont, I know how hard this sendoff must be for the
Guardsmen, their families and friends, Senator Mikulski and all those
attending. Our hearts and prayers are with those brave Maryland
soldiers--and all of our brave men and women preparing to leave--and
their families during this difficult time. We hope they will be
returning home soon.
During recent years, the FBI has confronted the daunting challenge
of protecting our nation against international terrorism in the wake of
the attacks of September 11, 2001, the subsequent anthrax attacks and
other threats. Director Mueller, you deserve credit for your efforts to
assure the safety of the American people.
In the wake of terrorist attacks, I recognize that the Justice
Department focused much of its attention on the prevention of terrorism
and the promotion of national security. Its top priorities continue to
be the prevention, investigation and prosecution of terrorist
activities against U.S. citizens and interests, which is evident in the
request for more than $417 million in new investments for the FBI,
including counterintelligence activities and justice information
systems technology.
Nonetheless, I am concerned that this budget proposal, if enacted,
would divert critical resources and staffing from traditional law
enforcement matters, such as reducing the spike in violent crime, to
support the Bureau's counterterrorism work. The fiscal year 2008 budget
requests the realignment of one hundred criminal agents to
counterterrorism work. This would leave traditional criminal law
enforcement significantly understaffed at the Bureau. Realigning these
agents may further erode the FBI's ability to combat violent crime and
has been cited by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) as one of the
top management challenges at the Justice Department. We must not allow
daily responsibilities that keep our citizens safe to fall aside.
It has been over two years since the FBI announced it would scrap
the three-year $170 million effort to develop a modern case management
system, known as the Virtual Case File, or VCF. I have repeatedly
expressed to you, Director Mueller, my deep frustration over the
millions of dollars wasted on ``lessons-learned,'' and the fact that
more than three years have passed since the original deadline while
these technology goals are not met.
Since the FBI announced the VCF's successor, the Sentinel program,
I have seen nothing to boost my confidence in the Bureau's ability to
manage the status and cost of this project. While the FBI estimates
that Sentinel will ultimately cost the American taxpayers $425 million,
a December 2006 OIG audit report questioned the reliability of the
total estimated costs for the program. It was originally expected that
the full Sentinel system would be deployed in 2009. Just recently,
however, we learned a familiar piece of news regarding the FBI's
computer upgrade project. Apparently there will be delays in the
deployment of Phase I of the Sentinel upgrade, which jeopardizes the
schedule for this much-needed computer system.
This latest setback is one of a string of costly delays in the
FBI's efforts to upgrade its computers. Sentinel was launched after the
FBI wasted five years and millions of taxpayer dollars on the failed
Trilogy program. By my calculations, at least $253 million has been
invested in Sentinel alone from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2007
between reprogramming dollars and Congressional appropriations. The
President's fiscal year 2008 Budget proposes no funding for the
project. The first of four program upgrade phases has yet to be
completed, although we expected the entire Sentinel program to be up
and running by 2009.
Director Mueller, this committee has to ask: Is this deja vu all
over again? You tried Trilogy and scrapped that. You told us that
Virtual Case File would meet your needs and you scrapped that. Now that
delays in Sentinel have been announced it's not clear at all that the
third time will be the charm. This has been an expensive series of
lessons--costing nearly $423 million for these three programs so far--
learned on the backs of American taxpayers.
We must ensure that the FBI's technological capabilities keep pace,
and to do so requires not only an emphasis on providing funds but also
effective use and implementation. I hope the latter is not neglected
and I remain seriously concerned about this project.
The pattern of incompetence and lack of accountability within the
Bureau is also on display with its treatment of its own equipment and
weapons. Another recent report by the DOJ OIG found that the FBI cannot
account for 160 laptop computers and an equal number of weapons that
were lost or stolen over a 3\1/2\ year period. This finding comes 4
years after the Inspector General recommended that the FBI take steps
to ensure the security of this equipment. Even more troubling, in many
cases it was found that the FBI could not even determine whether its
lost or stolen computers contained classified or sensitive information,
putting Bureau employees and other individuals at risk of becoming
victims of identity theft and potentially compromising national
security information
I am deeply troubled by the DOJ OIG's report finding widespread
illegal and improper use of National Security Letters (NSLs) to obtain
Americans' phone and financial records. As Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I convened a hearing on NSL abuse several weeks
ago. Inspector General Fine testified that his office found 22 separate
instances where the FBI improperly abused NSLs in the review of just 77
FBI files. Not a single one of these violations had been reported by
the FBI. On top of that, because the FBI still lacks the information
technology that it needs to function efficiently in the Information
Age, OJG found that the FBI database used to track NSLs malfunctioned,
making it impossible to keep track of these letters. I fear that the
violations the Inspector General uncovered are probably just the tip of
the iceberg and that there could be thousands of additional violations
among the tens of thousands of NSLs that the FBI is now using each
year.
The FBI finds itself again at a crossroads. Acknowledging
shortcomings is well and good, but the Bureau--and the Justice
Department as a whole--must also learn from its mistakes if progress is
to be made. The time has come for demonstrable progress by the Bureau
on a learning curve that has gone on and on for far too long. Much work
remains to be done and I have no doubt that the leaders and members of
this Subcommittee will fulfill their obligation to the American people
to carefully examine all of these issues.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate you
being here in place of Barbara Mikulski. We know Senator
Mikulski, the Chair, is tied up, but she's very involved in
these issues.
Paul, I want to just say to you, we wish you well. As
Senator Leahy said, you've served the Senate well, you've
served this subcommittee very, very well and we wish you the
very best in whatever your next step is. We'll miss you here.
You have--on this side of the aisle--I know you work with the
Democrats, but you have, when I was chairman of this
subcommittee, you were a valuable resource to getting the job
done here, for everybody, and we owe you a lot. And, we thank
you for your service to the Senate and to the Nation.
Mr. Carliner. Thank you, sir.
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, thank you for joining us
today to discuss the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 2008
budget request. One week after your arrival as the sixth
Director of the FBI, our Nation suffered its worst terrorist
attack ever on U.S. soil. The September 11, 2001 attack--
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon signified
the transformation of a new FBI, focusing more on national
security. Congress has tasked the FBI with more responsibility
than any other Federal law enforcement agency, resulting in
more challenges and changes than ever before.
The FBI is the Nation's premier law enforcement
counterterrorism and counterintelligence agency that
investigates criminal activity and includes terrorism, foreign
intelligence, operations, espionage, cyber-crime, public
corruption, national criminal organizations, white-collar
crimes, and significant violent crime. The FBI request for 2008
is $6.4 billion. This is a $391 million increase over the 2007
joint resolution funding level.
It has come to my attention, Mr. Director, that the FBI has
a $139 million shortfall in the 2008 budget request. Chairman
Mikulski and I want to work with you to ensure that the FBI has
sufficient resources to protect our Nation. Based on my review
of your request, combined with the likely fiscal constraints of
this subcommittee, we will need your assistance as we face
tough funding decisions regarding the allocation of resources
in your budget.
This subcommittee and the Bureau share the difficult task
of targeting these limited resources in a manner that
safeguards taxpayers' dollars, while preserving public safety.
The Department of Justice's inspector general (IG) recently
issued a report critical of the FBI's use of national security
letters (NSL). The IG's review found that more than 60 percent
of the files examined, including--included violations of the
FBI's own policies and procedures.
The report also identified significant abuses in the use of
exigent letters. The FBI regularly issued them when no
emergency existed, often when there was not even a criminal
case open. The lack of controls in the use of national security
letters and exigent letters is very troubling, but as the
former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
I also know that they're critical in your mission of keeping
America safe.
Director Mueller, in our meeting last month, you committed
to fix the deficiencies identified in the IG report and to
implement its 10 recommendations. The FBI must carefully
balance the privacy protections and civil liberties of
Americans against the need to provide its agents critical
information that's pivotal to mission success.
Chairman Mikulski and I have provided the FBI $10 million
in the current war supplemental bill to carry out the IG's
recommendations to fix these problems.
We're extremely saddened, as you were, by the tragedy that
took place on the Virginia Tech campus last week. I understand
that the FBI dispatched 20 agents, four victim assistant
specialists, and one terrorism victim specialist. I look
forward to hearing from you, Mr. Director, about the FBI's
role, and what these men and women are doing to assist those
affected by this terrible event.
While I wholeheartedly support bringing the FBI into the
21st century and realize the importance of information
technology in the FBI's mention--mission, I have a number of
unanswered questions about Sentinel's phase one implementation.
Given your Trilogy failure, I will not support unlimited and
unchecked resources and will not tolerate broken promises for
the results of information technology (IT) projects that are
not fulfilled or delivered.
I understand that things are on track and within budget,
but I expect the questions of this subcommittee to be answered
in a timely and complete manner. This has not occurred, but I'm
hopeful that with your commitments here today, we'll be able to
continue our support for this needed, important project.
The FBI's Hazardous Device School, HDS, at Redstone
Arsenal, is the crown jewel of the Federal Government's effort
to provide training to Federal, State, and local bomb
technicians. In partnership with the Army, this facility has
trained over 20,000 bomb technicians in the past 36 years.
That's a proven record of success.
HDS is the only pre-blast explosive training school in the
United States. With the continued construction of the National
Center for Explosive Research, Redstone Arsenal will become the
home of Federal law enforcement explosives training and
research. I'm working collaboratively to expand the Federal
Government's explosive infrastructure and expertise here. I
look forward to hearing from you, Director Mueller, to ensure
that Redstone Arsenal is, and will continue to be, the law
enforcement capital of explosives research and training.
There are other issues I'd like to discuss this morning,
including the use of resources for the FBI's priority missions.
In addition, I would like to talk about the relationship of the
FBI Director to the new Director of National Intelligence and
the financial and manpower implications for the FBI. I remain
concerned that this new arrangement, while important, is
placing additional personnel stresses on an overburdened FBI. I
fear that some of the FBI's traditional law enforcement
responsibilities will not be sufficiently supported by this
budget request.
Director Mueller, I look forward to hearing your thoughts
on the FBI's budget request and we also look forward to working
with you on these and other important issues facing our Nation.
And, Madam Chairman, I just want to thank the men and women
who work at the Federal Bureau of Investigation for what they
do to keep this country secure.
Thank you.
Senator Mikulski [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Shelby, and good morning to everybody. I'm going to say just a
few quick thanks before we go right into our hearing.
First, thank you, Senator Leahy, for opening this hearing
and advising everyone that I was with our Governor, Governor
O'Malley, to see off the first phase of National Guard
deployment from the State of Maryland, 1,400 Marylanders have
been called up, and will all be leaving in 90 days. So, we
wanted to be there for them this morning.
So, Senator Leahy, thank you for that.
And, Director Mueller, thank you for accommodating the
delay of starting this hearing.
I want to advise my colleagues that the Director must leave
at noon. So we're going to go right into allowing you to
testify, so I ask that during the questions, if you have things
you want to incorporate from your opening statement, do.
I also want to thank Senator Leahy for acknowledging that
today is the last hearing--the last public appearance of Paul
Carliner--Ace Aide who's served me for 12 years. He has served
the Nation for 12 years in his role as my clerk on
Appropriations. We wish Paul well. We know wherever he goes, he
will be outstanding. But also, it's a goodbye for the FBI's
legislative Ace Aide as well, Eleni Kalisch.
Eleni, please stand up so people can know who you are.
Ms. Kalisch is going to be leaving the FBI. She has been
the Director's liaison to this subcommittee and has done an
outstanding job. We always appreciated your candor and your
cooperation, as you appreciated Paul's candor, we'll call it
candor these days because we're being kind. But really, we wish
you very well, Ms. Kalisch, in your new life. Because I think
all of us know, we can't do our job without the worker bees and
we thank our staff and again, reiterate how much we appreciate
the FBI itself.
Senator Shelby outlined the budget concerns. I'm going to,
essentially, agree with the issues that he's raised, and ask
unanimous consent that my full statement be in the record.
And, note the fact that we've asked the FBI to essentially
be two agencies, but the same agency. One agency to fight the
global war against terrorism, to have an agency within the
agency, our own, kind of American, uniquely American version of
MI5, to really work in protecting our homeland, and at the same
time to continue fighting violent crime, protecting children
against exploitation, whether it's on the Internet or in the
playgrounds, from despicable, heinous sexual predators. We are
working to give them the resources to do both, which requires
new people, requires new training, and requires us to stand
sentry against those things that sometimes get out of our
control.
So, in the course of this hearing, we're going to come back
to know if you have the real resources to fight this new
emerging spike in organized crime. How is it working to take on
what we're asking you to deal with, the exploitation of
children? Cyber-crime is despicable, whether it's a hacker
against our national lab or whether it's a cyber-stalker
against our kids. And, at the same time, the FBI is fighting
the global war against terrorism.
I was recently in London and had the chance to meet with
MI5, but while I was meeting with MI5 I was also meeting with
the FBI office there. And I saw how the FBI and our intel
agencies worked with a very treasured ally in disrupting that
very ghoulish airline plot of last summer.
So, you've got a big job, we know that your budget has
increased, but we want to make sure we're matching resources
with mission and also standing sentry on our accountability
issues. So, having said that, the statement I wanted to make on
the details of the budget, I'll put into the record.
Why don't you go ahead and present your testimony, Director
Mueller, and then we'll get right into the questions, which I
think is the meat and potatoes of the hearing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
This is the second in our series of hearings focusing on
security. Unfortunately, this comes in the aftermath of two
tragedies--the tragic events at Virginia Tech last week and the
death of FBI Special Agent Barry Lee Bush, a 20-year veteran of
the FBI, who was killed in the line of duty in New Jersey three
weeks ago. In both cases, we were reminded that violent crime
is a growing problem in this country and the FBI's own
statistics show it is on the rise.
The number one job of government is to keep our communities
safe from violence. But the rise in violent crime and the
critical ongoing fight against terrorism have placed new
pressure on the FBI. Just look at the FBI's top priorities:
combating terrorism, preventing the acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction, stopping violent crime on our streets,
stopping foreign intelligence operations, stopping the
exploitation of children, and fixing their information
technology infrastructure.
The FBI is both an intelligence and a law enforcement
agency. It is no longer just a domestic law enforcement agency.
It is now a global intelligence and law enforcement agency
operating in over 50 foreign countries. Unfortunately, compared
to other intelligence agencies, the FBI share of the overall
intelligence budget is small.
Yet, the FBI is charged with protecting 300 million
Americans from a terrorist attack. In January, the President
increased the FBI's role in counterterrorism by transferring
the Render Safe mission from the Defense Department to the FBI.
This means the FBI is now responsible for dismantling a nuclear
device in the United States.
This has increased the FBI's responsibility and placed
added pressure on its budget. I am very concerned about the
rising rate of violent crime. Just look at the most recent
statistics from the FBI: robbery is up by 9.7 percent,
aggravated assault is up by 1.2 percent, murder has increased
by 1.4 percent and for cities with populations of 500,000 to 1
million--the murder rate has increased by 8.4 percent.
However, since 9/11, the FBI has shifted almost 2,000
agents from violent crime into counterterrorism. This forced
state and local law enforcement to take up the slack, because
of rising crime rates, state and local law enforcement are
stretched to the limit.
I believe we need more resources dedicated to violent
crime. State and local law enforcement needs the FBI to help
them fight street gangs like MS-13 and other types of organized
crime plaguing our communities. Joint federal-state task forces
are the most effective means to combat violent gangs, drug
dealers and others who have a predatory intent. We should
expand federal-state task forces to help locals fight crime on
the streets.
Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts $1.5 billion
from state and local law enforcement. You cannot cut the COPS
program when violent crime is on the rise. Our communities need
federal resources to keep them safe.
In addition, I am concerned about the recent disclosure of
abuses in issuing National Security letters. The Justice
Department Inspector General [IG] found the FBI had no tracking
or compliance procedures. This is unacceptable.
That's why we added $500,000 to the IG's budget in the
Supplemental Appropriations bill to continue oversight of the
FBI on this subject. In addition, we directed that $10 million
of the FBI's budget be dedicated to implementing the IG
recommendations to make sure the FBI fixes the problem.
The FBI must not only protect us from terrorists, they have
to protect our privacy and our civil rights. I commend Director
Mueller for his swift response to this problem and I look
forward to hearing his long-term plan to correct these abuses.
This subcommittee will also maintain it's vigilance on
Sentinel, the FBI's long-delayed IT program. After the collapse
of Trilogy, the FBI must stay on track, and see that this
program does not fail.
At the Congress' request, both the GAO and the Justice
Department IG are monitoring and overseeing this program. We
will maintain our vigilant oversight to ensure that this
program stays on track and that no taxpayer dollars are wasted.
The President's proposed budget for the FBI for 2008 is
$6.4 billion, a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. The
proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 provides funding for
11,868 special agents and 17,500 professional support
personnel.
I want to point out to my colleagues that since 2001, the
FBI's budget has increased by over 100 percent. Few other
agencies have had a 100 percent increase to their budget in
just six years. But given the critical mission of the FBI, even
a 100 percent increase may not be enough to fulfill its mission
of protecting the American public.
In counterterrorism, the budget proposes $2.5 billion, a
$160 million increase over last year. This increase will pay
for 176 additional special agents and 111 additional
intelligence analysts in the counterterrorism division.
Counterterrorism now accounts for 40 percent of the FBI's
budget.
In the area of violent crime, the fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes to spend $2.1 billion, which is a $50 million increase
over 2007. This is just a 2.5 percent increase over 2007.
I have two concerns with this budget. First, the FBI's most
recent statistics show a rise in violent crime across the
country. When you add the $1.5 billion cut to state and local
law enforcement in the President's budget, it becomes a double
cut. Second, a 2.5 percent increase is not enough, given the
needs of our communities all across this country. State and
local law enforcement want to expand their cooperation with the
FBI.
The budget proposes to spend $22 million to fight crimes
against children, a 5 percent increase over last year. We must
do more to fight sexual predators. Our neighborhoods and
communities need to be protected from these horrible predators.
Since many of these predators use the internet and come from
other states, only the FBI can mount a national fight against
these predators, in cooperation with state and local law
enforcement.
Given all of these important roles and responsibilities, we
must ensure that the FBI has the resources it needs. The lives
of 300 million Americans depend on it.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair,
Chairman.
And, let me also start off by thanking Paul Carliner for
his service. Looking at it, not from either side of the aisle,
but from this side of the bench, let me tell you that our
relationship has been terrific. You have been tremendously
helpful and understanding the needs of the FBI and translating
them into pieces of legislation to give us the funds that we
need to do our mission. And, I also want to join the others in
thanking you for the service and tell you that there are also,
always employment opportunities at the FBI.
And, let me also mention with Eleni Kalisch here, who has
been, I must say, my strong right arm in what is an
exceptionally important position in the FBI and that is a
liaison with Congress. She has done a remarkable job. I hate to
see her go, but I wish her good sailing and we will miss her.
So, thank you, also for your service.
I appreciate the opportunity, Madam Chairman, to be here
today to discuss our 2008 budget request. I'd also like to
thank this subcommittee for its continued oversight and support
of the Bureau, as we work together to keep the Nation safe,
while preserving the privacy rights and civil liberties of all
Americans.
As I said, the subcommittee is aware, and has pointed out,
the FBI has been undergoing significant restructuring,
realignment, and transformation for the past 5\1/2\ years. All
designed to better position the Bureau to meet the threats and
challenges of the future. And, the men and women of the FBI
have demonstrated the ability and the willingness to embrace
change for a better, stronger, and more effective organization.
In order to continue to meet the evolving challenges facing the
Nation, our 2008 budget request totals almost 30,000 positions
and $6.4 billion.
I would like to briefly address the five key challenges
that are the focus of this budget request. First is combating
terrorism; second, preventing the acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction; third, defeating foreign intelligence
operations; fourth, reducing child exploitation and violent
crimes; and five, strengthening infrastructure and information
technology.
COMBATING TERRORISM
The first challenge continues to be addressing the current
terrorist threat environment. It is clear that the FBI's
operational and analytical commitment to combating terrorism
must continue to grow. And, therefore, our budget requests 231
new positions, 126 of which are agents. These resources will
enable the Bureau to conduct investigations to prevent,
disrupt, and deter acts of terrorism.
Our intelligence-driven focus in addressing terrorism, at
this point, is taxing our physical surveillance and electronic
surveillance intelligence-gathering capabilities. Therefore, we
are seeking enhancement of 118 new positions, including 12
agents, $65 million, to strengthen surveillance and technical
collection capabilities.
The capacity to carry out extended covert surveillance of
subjects and targets is essential to the FBI's counterterrorism
and counterintelligence programs. Additionally, we must be able
to develop and deploy new operational technologies and
techniques to counter a more technically sophisticated
adversary and to exploit and share the information that we
gather.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The second challenge that we are facing, addressed in the
2008 budget, is the intent of terrorists to seek the means and
capability to use weapons of mass destruction against the
United States.
In July of last year, we established the Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) Directorate to better integrate and leverage
FBI counterproliferation and WMD intelligence analysis and
prevention programs. We must continue to build this Directorate
and we have requested 146 new positions toward that end, as
well as $19 million to continue to enhance our capabilities to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the threat of WMD.
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS
The third significant challenge addressed in our 2008
budget is, or budget request, is the foreign intelligence
threat to the United States. Foreign powers continue their
efforts to establish economic, military, and political
preeminence and to position themselves to compete with the
United States in economic and diplomatic arenas. Foreign
adversaries are increasingly employing nontraditional
collectors, such as students, visiting scientists, scholars,
businessmen, as well as cyber-based tools, to target and
penetrate U.S. institutions.
Our budget request includes a request for 119 positions, 55
of which are agents, and $26.5 million to address these
activities.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The fourth program area included in our 2008 budget request
is combating child pornography and obscenity, and protecting
children from trafficking and other forms of exploitation. One
of the most important and successful programs is the innocent
images national initiative, which for 10 years, has targeted
sexual predators who use the Internet to exploit children.
We have ongoing undercover operations across the country
with more than 240 agents who investigate cases with their
State and local counterparts. Unfortunately, there is no
shortage of work in this arena. Our caseload has spiked from
just 113 cases in 1996 to more than 2,100 last year. Our budget
request proposes 14 new positions and $2.4 million for the
Crimes Against Children and Innocent Images Programs.
As this subcommittee is aware and has been pointing out in
the opening statements, the country is experiencing an uptick
in violent crime, particularly as it relates to gang violence.
By our own estimates, there are now over 30,000 gangs across
America and over 800,000 gang members. The FBI has established
131 violent gang task forces across the country, enabling FBI
agents to work in lockstep with police on the street, sharing
information, and conducting investigations together.
While combating violent crime remains a priority, the shift
in resources from our criminal programs to our national
security programs has been significant. And, in this current
budget process, I'm looking forward to working with the
subcommittee to ensure that our criminal programs may be
restored to appropriate resource levels.
I might add that, in this context, the budget process
started 2 years ago. And consequently, when we sat down and
addressed our priorities 2 years ago, we did not have the
benefit of information that may have come along afterward, such
as the recent statistics that indicate the uptick in violent
crime. And so, as we go through this process, we want to work
with the subcommittee to take into account those factors that
may have come about over the last couple of years since we
started this budget process.
I might also add in this context, that in addition to our
investigative capabilities, the Bureau brings to local, State,
and national efforts, efforts against violent crime, a number
of proven crime fighting technologies, services, and tools that
are used every day by law enforcement agencies throughout the
country. Whether it be forensics, identification and
information technologies, all are crucial for leveraging the
capabilities of our State and local law enforcement partners in
the fight against violent crime. This also, should be taken
into context as we go through this budget process this year.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Finally, the overall success of the FBI's mission requires
the appropriate work environment and updated information
technology. The 2008 budget includes $15 million to provide
technology support, and to prevent information technology
obsolescence. This funding will enable us to upgrade networks
and encryption to comply with mandated intelligence community
protocols and to begin bringing desktops, laptops, servers,
printers, into a 3-year technology refreshment cycle.
Our request also includes a total of $11.5 million to
address critical space requirements, including requirements
associated with the FBI headquarters annex and $4 million for
the central records complex. The annex will provide additional
space to ease existing fragmentation of headquarters, divisions
and offices. The central records complex will consolidate most
of our records into a single facility, moving from a system of
paper records to digital records.
This covers, Madam Chairman, the five key areas, including
violent crime, that are addressed in our 2008 budget request.
But before concluding my remarks, I would like to provide
an update on the development of our information management
system, known as Sentinel. As has been pointed out by Senator
Leahy, Sentinel is being developed in four phases, and will be
delivered in increments beginning this year. We have attempted
to keep your staffs briefed, every 2 weeks, at this juncture,
on the status of that project. Our contractor, Lockheed Martin,
has completed the critical design and build of the software
application and is presently in the testing phase. Once this
testing is complete, we will begin piloting phase one at
headquarters, followed by piloting in several field offices,
during which time ourselves and Lockheed Martin will correct
any additional issues that surface. And, shortly after we
complete the testing in pilot offices, we will begin the
rollout of Sentinel training and the software application
across the organization.
We had hoped to begin deployment this month. Currently, we
anticipate beginning deployment next month. I will tell you
that the schedule has shifted, as a result of some unforeseen
technicalities, a total of 5 weeks. I will also tell you that
we are on budget. We will continue to keep the subcommittee
updated on our progress in the weeks ahead.
Madam Chairman, Senator Shelby, members of the
subcommittee, I thank you for the cooperation and the support
you have given to the FBI in the past and I ask for your
support in providing the resources requested, not only in the
2008 budget, but also resources that may be necessitated by a
change of circumstances over the last several months or years.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning and
look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller III
Good morning, Madam Chairman, Senator Shelby, and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I would also like to thank you for your
continued oversight of the Bureau and your efforts to ensure our
success as we pursue the shared goal of making America safer.
2008 budget request
The fiscal year 2008 budget for the FBI totals 29,373 positions and
$6.4 billion. The net fiscal year 2008 program increases total 714 new
positions (231 agents, 121 intelligence analysts, and 362 professional
support) and $313.8 million. Our fiscal year 2008 budget is focused on
improving the FBI's capabilities in addressing five key challenges:
combating terrorism; preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction; defeating foreign intelligence operations; reducing child
exploitation and violent crimes; and strengthening infrastructure and
information technology.
I recognize that there are many competing requirements for limited
funding. Nonetheless, the FBI must continue the progress it has made to
implement the President's directives and the recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. At the
same time, the FBI must be resourced to discharge its critical criminal
investigative mission that also contributes to the overall safety and
security of the Nation. In addition, for the FBI to be a full partner
in the intelligence community it must have the tools, capacities, and
capabilities to work closely with other members of the community.
Finally, the FBI must find the proper balance between expanding our
workforce and supporting on-board employees with the technology and
infrastructure necessary to accomplish our mission. I believe the
fiscal year 2008 budget will go a long way toward achieving these
goals.
combating terrorism
The current terrorist threat environment shows no signs of abating
in the near term. Consequently, the FBI's operational and analytical
commitment to combating terrorism is not expected to decrease. The FBI
must remain vigilant for indications of terrorist groups shifting focus
from the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan to acts that could be
carried out against United States interests outside the current theater
of operation and/or against the United States homeland. The FBI must
also continue its efforts to deny terrorist groups and sympathizers the
ability to raise funds and to carry out other operational and
logistical support from the United States.
This budget requests 231 new positions (126 agents) and $44.4
million to conduct intelligence-drive terrorism investigations and
operations. Additionally, the fiscal year 2008 budget proposes the
reallocation of 100 field special agents from criminal investigations
to counterterrorism. These resources will enable the FBI to conduct
investigations to prevent, disrupt, and deter acts of terrorism and
continue to strengthen working relationships with our Federal, State,
and local partners; enhance our capacity for analyzing and exploiting
information from growing volumes of seized terrorist digital media and
communications; enhance the Terrorist Screening Center operations
center; provide support to the National Virtual Translation Center,
which serves as a clearinghouse to facilitate timely and accurate
translation of foreign intelligence for elements of the intelligence
community; and address growth in the number of terrorism and
counterintelligence-related computer intrusion cases.
Shifting from a reactive criminal prosecution approach to a more
prevention and intelligence-driven focus in our counterterrorism
program is taxing the FBI's physical surveillance and electronic
surveillance intelligence gathering capacities. The capacity to carry
out extended covert surveillance of subjects and targets is absolutely
critical to the FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence
programs. Surveillance capacities--physical and electronic--give us
insight and awareness of our adversaries. Insight and awareness, in
turn, create opportunities to identify sleeper cells, disrupt support
networks and communications, and recruit assets. We need a robust
surveillance capacity to keep on top of known and emerging targets.
Additionally, we must be able to develop and deploy new operational
technologies and techniques to counter a more technically sophisticated
adversary and to exploit and share the information we gather.
In fiscal year 2008, we seek an enhancement of 118 new positions
(12 agents) and $65 million to strengthen surveillance and technical
collection capacities. These resources will enable the FBI to increase
the number of physical surveillance teams; address growing workload for
electronic surveillance involving broadband and other data network and
internet communications; develop new techniques and tools to address
emerging technologies; meet demands for new audio and data collection
and upgrade existing and/or obsolete digital collection system
equipment and components; address growing workload for covert entries
and searches; and develop new techniques and tools for tactical
operations.
An integral part of our national security program is the
development and operation of human intelligence. Our budget request
includes 85 new positions (6 agents) and $22.3 million to strengthen
human intelligence capacities. This funding will enable the FBI to
provide staffing for field intelligence groups to comply with new human
source validation standards and perform continuous assessments;
continue development and deployment of Delta to support management of
over 15,000 FBI human sources; deliver and deploy comprehensive human
source targeting and development training; and remediate human source
handling deficiencies. The intelligence derived from FBI human
intelligence source collection also enables other agencies' success in
their counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and counterproliferation
missions.
We are fortunate that there has not been another major terrorist
attack within the United States since September 11, 2001. This reflects
positively, in part, on the hard and diligent work of FBI employees and
those individuals who work alongside them, such as prosecutors and our
partners in law enforcement and intelligence. However, we cannot afford
to lessen our guard against the threat from terrorism. We must continue
to invest in the resources and capabilities to counter an ever adapting
and agile adversary.
preventing the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (wmd)/render
safe
The National Counterterrorism Center WMD Threat Assessment, 2005-
2011, reaffirmed the intent of terrorist adversaries to seek the means
and capability to use WMD against the United States at home and abroad.
Denying these adversaries access to WMD is a top administration
counterterrorism strategy priority. Within the U.S. Government, the FBI
has been assigned responsibility for Render Safe operations involving
all WMD in the National Capital Region. The responsibility to render
safe WMD throughout the remainder of the United States belongs to the
FBI, supported by the Department of Defense. To fulfill its critical
responsibilities in the area of WMD, the FBI must continue to build to
the capacities and capabilities of its WMD Directorate and the Render
Safe Program.
The WMD Directorate was created in July 2006 to better integrate
and leverage FBI counterproliferation and WMD intelligence analysis and
prevention programs. The fiscal year 2008 budget seeks 146 new
positions (29 agents) and $19 million to continue to enhance the
Directorate's capabilities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the
threat of WMD. These resources will allow the FBI to enhance strategic
partnerships with foreign intelligence, law enforcement, security,
public health, agricultural, chemical, and other public and private
sector agencies and organizations that are vital to the early detection
of a potential WMD incident.
The fiscal year 2008 budget also includes enhancements of 9
positions (3 agents) and $11 million to enhance the FBI's Render Safe
Mission, which encompasses both the tactical and technical response to
incidents involving WMD within the United States and its territories.
The complete development of a robust render safe crisis response for
the directed contingencies requires the FBI to develop command and
control capabilities to support deployments and to provide the FBI and
United States Government leaders with the information required to make
time-critical decisions. The requested funding will allow the FBI to
enhance its National Asset response staffing beyond current minimum
levels and provide program personnel with adequate training, equipment,
supplies, and services. Additionally, the requested funding will allow
the FBI to upgrade its Render Safe technical tools so the operators
will have the latest and most effective technology at their disposal to
meet and dispose of this challenge.
defeating foreign intelligence operations
The foreign intelligence threat to the United States is increasing
as foreign powers continue their efforts to establish economic,
military, and political preeminence and to position themselves to
compete with the United States in economic and diplomatic arenas.
Foreign adversaries are increasingly employing nontraditional
collectors--e.g., students and visiting scientists, scholars, and
businessmen--as well as cyber-based tools to target and penetrate U.S.
institutions. The fiscal year 2008 budget includes 119 positions (55
agents) and $26.5 million to address these activities.
In November 2005, the FBI launched a Domain Management Initiative
to focus attention on whether the FBI is conducting the right
investigations to have the greatest impact on threats to national
security. Continued implementation of the domain initiative will
provide FBI leaders with a comprehensive and context decision-making
environment. It will allow field office executive management to examine
its target and regional environment and discuss the relative priority
and focus of different activities. In addition, resources are needed to
transform and leverage the capacities and capabilities of the Foreign
Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) into a National Security Analysis
Center that would provide expanded analytical support to all FBI
National Security programs by leveraging data and services residing in
both FTTTF and the Investigative Data Warehouse.
reduce child exploitation and violent crimes
The FBI remains committed to fighting child pornography and
obscenity, and to protecting children from trafficking and other forms
of exploitation.
The fiscal year 2008 budget proposes 14 new positions and $2.4
million for the Crimes Against Children (CAC) and Innocent Images
National Initiative (IINI) programs. These resources will enhance
field-based Child Abduction Rapid Deployment (CARD) Teams that provide
onsite response and investigative and technical assistance in child
abduction cases. The funding will also enable the IINI, which targets
child prostitution, to enhance its capacity to disseminate intelligence
regarding unregistered sex offenders and innocent images
investigations.
In addition to its investigative capabilities, the FBI brings to
local, State, and national efforts against violent crime a number of
proven crime-fighting technologies, services, and tools that are used
every day by law enforcement agencies throughout the country to solve
crimes and put criminals in jail. FBI forensic, identification, and
information technologies and tools are critical for leveraging the
capabilities of our State and local law enforcement partners in the
fight against violent crime. Access to these crime-solving services and
capabilities is even more important in a post 9/11 environment where
the FBI may not always be able to devote the level of special agent
resources to violent crime as it has in the past. Over the past several
years, State and local agencies have been provided grant funding to
improve their digital forensic, DNA, automated fingerprint
identification, and information sharing capabilities.
One of the consequences of these improved State and local
capabilities is increased demand for services and access to the
underlying and unifying FBI systems and connectivity. For fiscal year
2008, the FBI is requesting a total of $90.5 million to improve its
capacities and capabilities for providing forensic, identification, and
information technologies and services for law enforcement, including
IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability ($10.0 million); Next Generation
Identification ($25 million); Law Enforcement Information Sharing/R-DEX
($5 million); DNA forensic services, including Walsh Act implementation
($14.6 million); Combined DNA Index System ($7 million); Regional
Computer Forensic Laboratories ($6 million); and Computer Analysis
Response Teams ($22.8 million).
strengthening infrastructure and information technology
Critical to the success of the FBI mission are a safe and
appropriate work environment and information technology (IT). Over the
past several years, the FBI has made substantial investments to upgrade
its underlying IT architecture, including the purchase of computer
workstations and software for employees and networks for connectivity
both within the FBI and with our external partners. Having made these
investments to bring IT in the FBI to near current state-of-the-art, it
is now necessary to keep these investments current with technology.
The fiscal year 2008 budget includes $15 million to provide
enterprise IT support and prevent IT obsolescence. This funding will
enable the FBI to address increased costs of software license/
maintenance agreements, upgrade networks and encryption to comply with
mandated intelligence community protocol, and begin bringing desktops,
laptops, servers, and printers into a 3-year technology refreshment
cycle.
Additionally, $7.5 million is requested to continue to build and
strengthen the FBI's IT program management capabilities. The Inspector
General and others have repeatedly criticized the FBI for ineffective
program management of IT projects. Funding requested will enable the
FBI to increase management and oversight of critical IT projects,
ensure compliance with FBI Life Cycle Management Directives, and
enhance FBI IT policy and planning capacities.
The FBI requests a total of $11.5 million to address critical space
requirements, including $7.5 million for fiscal year 2008 requirements
associated with the FBI Headquarters (HQ) Annex and $4 million for the
Central Records Complex (CRC). The FBIHQ Annex will provide additional
office space to ease existing fragmentation of headquarters divisions
and offices. This funding will support the build-out of annex space,
including furnishings, UNet and FBINet connectivity, equipment, locks,
alarms, and access control. The CRC will consolidate most of the FBI's
records, which are currently dispersed in FBI locations across the
Nation, into one single facility. The funding requested will support
non-standard requirements associated with the construction of the
permanent CRC facility, such as fencing, vehicle barriers, and guard
booths. Construction of the CRC, a GSA build-to-suit/leased facility,
is planned to begin in fiscal year 2008.
``unfunded fte'' reduction
The fiscal year 2008 budget reflects a reduction of 2,700 positions
(576 special agent and 2,124 professional support) for the FBI. This
reduction is part of a Department of Justice-wide effort to remove
``unaffordable work-years'' and to recast positions and work-years
consistent with available funding. Let me assure you that the
``unaffordable work-years'' reduction is being targeted against vacant
positions and that no on-board FBI employee's position will be affected
by this action. The underlying causes for the accumulation of
``unaffordable work-years'' are the results of both internal workforce
management decisions by the FBI and external decisions on the Bureau's
budget.
conclusion
Madam Chairman, Senator Shelby, and members of the subcommittee,
today's FBI is part of a vast national and international campaign
dedicated to defeating terrorism. Working hand-in-hand with our
partners in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and diplomatic
circles, the FBI's primary responsibility is to neutralize terrorist
cells and operatives here in the United States and help dismantle
terrorist networks worldwide. Although protecting the United States
from terrorist attacks is our first priority, we remain committed to
the defense of America against foreign intelligence threats as well as
enforcing Federal criminal laws while still respecting and defending
the Constitution.
I recognize that the fiscal year 2008 request will require
difficult decisions with respect to meeting the competing demands among
the Department of Justice components as well as those of other
agencies. At the same time, even in times of fiscal restraint, there is
a strong public expectation that the government provides our Nation's
safety and security. Protecting the Nation from terrorist attacks, the
threat of WMD, foreign intelligence agents, and violence requires a
strong and well-resourced FBI.
I ask for your support in providing the resources requested in the
fiscal year 2008 budget so that we can fulfill our mission to safeguard
the American people. I look forward to working with you on this budget
proposal and other issues.
Once again, I thank you for your continued support of the FBI. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Director, and
we're going to follow very closely our time. I'm going to get
right to my questions. I'm going to go into three areas. The
FBI fighting crime, the FBI fighting terrorism, and then making
sure that the FBI has an accountability system for, not only
Sentinel, but also the national security letters, where there
seems to have been a big problem.
VIOLENT CRIME
I'd like to go right to the violent crime issue because,
again, we'll come back to the fact that you're two agencies,
but you're one agency. Violent crime is on the rise, we've
heard about the data. Robbery is up 9 percent, aggravated
assault is up. It's not just about the crime, it's also who's
doing the crime, the new gangs, and the threat of meth.
As I looked at your budget, 60 percent of the FBI's money
goes to counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and the intel
function. Thirty-four percent goes to traditional crime-
fighting responsibilities. My first question is, is that the
right ratio? Or is it that as we scrambled to fight the global
war against terrorism and the massive need to shift resources,
have we kind of left fighting crime a little bit behind? What
would you say would be the actual resources you need, or are
they pretty well amplified in this statement?
Mr. Mueller. First of all, let me say the percentage that
you give in terms of dollars may be roughly accurate. I will
tell you that in terms of agents assigned to national security
responsibilities as opposed to the criminal responsibility,
it's almost 50/50 on the street. I will tell you that since
September 11, understandably I believe, we have taken
resources--substantial resources--from the criminal side of the
house to address the counterterrorism mission. We have tried to
establish priorities that maximize our capabilities to augment
State and local law enforcement and other authorities in
particular areas.
I have always believed that when it comes to violent crime,
the FBI should play a substantial role, because of our
capabilities of reaching across jurisdictions. And, we have set
up, as I----
Senator Mikulski. But Director, do you feel that the
President's budget is enough for you and your agents and
analysts, and so on, to do the job of fighting crime and having
the important linkages to local law enforcement with the unique
role the FBI plays?
Mr. Mueller. I believe at this juncture, we ought to
revisit, as will happen through the budget process--normally
within the administration, with the Department of Justice, with
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but also with the
subcommittee, our allocation of resources, given the uptick in
violent crime with the possibility, given the budget
constraints, of augmenting the FBI. I absolutely believe that
we would benefit from additional resources.
Senator Mikulski. Once we have this information, we'll talk
with you about that in more detail.
TERRORISM
Let's go to the global war against terrorism. One of the
things that I've noted, that in addition to the very important
intel function that you perform, that you're also now playing a
very important role in the issue of weapons of mass
destruction, some of which is too sensitive for a public
hearing.
But again, our question is--this requires very
sophisticated people. These are people that require enormous
scientific and technical backgrounds often more usually found
in the Department of Defense (DOD), and it also takes a lot of
money to do this. Could you share with the subcommittee, that
as you do the surveillance and things that are important
domestically and internationally, what about this new role of
fighting the weapons of mass destruction? Should it be with
you? And do you have the resources that you need to do this?
Mr. Mueller. Well, responding to an attack of weapons of
mass destruction in the United States is a responsibility of
the FBI. I think it is appropriately a responsibility of the
FBI, in large part because of the extent of integration we have
with State and local law enforcement around the country, our
presence around the country, and the expertise that we develop
in this arena, some of it at Redstone Arsenal, as pointed out
by Senator Shelby. So, I do believe we should have this
mission.
But it is an expensive mission. It requires contributions
from a number of different skill sets and, as the Senator is
well aware, those who are on the intelligence side of the house
as well as this side of the house understand that we have
requested substantial funding in that regard and my
understanding is we're getting substantial funding to assist in
that. But it is an expensive proposition, but I do believe we
appropriately have that mission.
Senator Mikulski. Well, my time has expired and I want to
go by the rules. I would just like the subcommittee to
understand, the FBI has now been given a very important
responsibility, which is to, number one, make sure that a
weapon of mass destruction does not fall into the hands of
people who would want to use them in the United States of
America. This is a pretty big job, against chemical,
biological, and nuclear, big and small.
Mr. Mueller. That's correct.
Senator Mikulski. That's a pretty big deal. Then, in
addition, there is something that is in your materials and that
is an open document, but Senators could also get a briefing on
this, called Render Safe, which means the FBI has also the
job--that if a nuclear weapon, big or small, is detected, their
job is to defuse it. This is big deal and it, and again,
requires enormous sophistication.
And, then also, for those who would want to bring these
despicable and horrific weapons into our country, or seize them
within our country, the stress, and the number, and the
scientific and technological capability, even for surveillance
is pretty significant. So, this isn't J. Edgar Hoover's FBI any
more. And it's not like, let's hear a hoo-hah for gumshoe. So,
we're talking about one, fighting gangs, dealing with meth,
partnering with local law enforcement, and then these very
sophisticated things.
I'm going to yield now to Senator Shelby, but I would hope,
also, that perhaps Senator Leahy will be picking up on the
question of those national security letters.
Senator Leahy. We are, yeah, we are.
Senator Mikulski. Okay, thank you. Because that was a
question I was going to go into.
Senator Shelby.
NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, the inspector general
issued a report critical of the FBI's use of national security
letters. While I understand the critical need for these tools,
the lack of supervision in the use of the national security
letters and exigent letters is very troubling. Can you tell us
what steps you're taking to correct the deficiencies and when
those steps will be completed? You've testified previously that
you would prefer administrative subpoena authority in
counterterrorism cases to the existing national security
letters (NSL) authority. Why do you prefer one tool over the
other?
Mr. Mueller. Let me start with what steps we've taken to
address the issues with regard to NSLs.
One of the first immediate steps we took was to expand on
the audit that was done by the inspector general and to go
across the country. I had 150 special agents, inspectors, visit
every office to look at the use of national security letters.
They have come back with information relating to the use around
the country. I do not believe that, in the end, as we go
through the information, there will be any startling
differences between what we found and what the IG found. But
nonetheless, it enables us to look at potential problems with
more particularity.
We are reviewing those findings now and my expectation is
that, in working with the IG in the next several weeks, we will
have some conclusions from that 10 percent audit. We are going
back and looking at the numbers reported, our software and
databases, to determine how we can retroactively identify, with
more precision, the numbers that may have been left out. And
again, we are working with the IG on that.
I would say the third, well, let me talk about the third
area, and that's the exigent letter issue. We have undertaken a
joint investigation with the inspector general to determine how
this happened, who was involved, and to make recommendations as
to what further steps must be taken as a result of our
findings. Again, it's a joint investigation with the inspector
general. I think that will take several weeks, if not months,
to follow-up thoroughly on that.
Most importantly, what we did not have in the FBI was a
compliance system, a compliance program. Large corporations
have compliance programs. And, we had put into place
procedures, but we had no way of assuring, on a daily basis,
that those procedures were being followed.
The $10 million that you mentioned in your opening remarks,
with regard to following up on the NSL issue, will be used to
establish a compliance office, reporting to the highest levels
of the FBI, and addressing--not just the issues that we found
with NSLs--but other issues to make certain that, whether it be
NSLs or other circumstances, where Congress has given us the
capabilities, that we are handling them appropriately, that the
reporting to Congress is accurate and to make certain that what
happened with NSLs does not happen again. And, I look at this
as not just addressing the NSL issue, but addressing other
issues within the Bureau that we can anticipate better and
address, before the inspector general or Congress needs to
address them.
The last step I would say that we're taking is
understanding--and agreeing with--the concerns of privacy
groups, legitimate concerns, about the use of NSLs. We have
undertaken outreach to the privacy groups and the civil
liberties groups, to explain what steps we're taking and to get
input. We may not always agree and, quite obviously, there'll
be occasions where we disagree, but we will have a dialogue as
to how we can do better in this regard, and have elicited input
from these privacy and civil liberties groups. Those are the
five steps that we are taking.
Senator Shelby. What would--you mentioned administrative
subpoena authority in counterterrorism cases.
Mr. Mueller. One of the issues with the national security
letters is the authorities are spread across a number of
statutes. The predication for it and understanding the use of a
particular NSL may depend on the type of records requested and
falls under separate statutes. Administrative subpoenas would,
hopefully, put in one place this authority. It would give, as
the latest iteration of the Privacy Act has given, the right
for somebody to contest it, as well as us to enforce it. And,
so my hope would be that the administrative subpoena process
would replicate, somewhat, the NSLs, but be much simpler for us
to operate under.
BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Shelby. Mr. Director, can you tell this
subcommittee if the 2008 budget request, in your judgment,
would meet your current operating needs?
Mr. Mueller. My belief is there should be further
discussion with the Department of Justice, with OMB and also
with this subcommittee, as to the budget, because circumstances
have changed in the last couple of years that, in my mind,
warrant a revisiting of the issues.
Senator Shelby. Madam Chairman, I have a number of
questions that I would like to--because of the interest of time
and the Director's schedule--submit to the record, for the
record, that I think are important.
Senator Mikulski. Without objection.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mueller. Can I add one thing? I'm sorry.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Mueller. In response to Senator Shelby's last question,
in terms of the budget formulation, one of the things we've
been asked to do, and believe it's important to do, is have a
strategy in the Bureau, a long-term strategy. Not a year-to-
year strategy, but a long-term strategy.
We are looking at budget requests over a 5-year period and
believe that, for us, we should be on a 5-year cycle of budget
requests. And, as we have developed the strategy, we are
putting in place the requests over a 5-year period. That also
will help, I believe, in supporting the discussion as to the
budget request for 2008.
The last point I'd make, I have to correct myself, I said
the Privacy Act, I did mean the Patriot Act, in terms of the
changes of the abilities of persons to contests NSLs and for us
to enforce them.
Senator Shelby. A 5-year budget plan would help you to plan
more readily, would it not?
Mr. Mueller. It would.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Well, not only a 5-year budget plan,
which we would certainly recommend because we could then look
at how to pace this. But also the fact, that when we look at
the funding of the intel agencies, you have to have more
visibility to be at the table.
Let me turn to Senator Leahy and, subcommittee members
we'll come back for a second round. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had the privilege
of serving on the Appropriations Committee and also, as the
Director knows, I serve on the Judiciary Committee. And, I just
want to take this opportunity to note, the Judiciary Committee
still has not received answers to the written questions that we
gave in connection with your March 14 appearance, or your
appearance last year on December 6.
Now, I understand that your responses have been submitted
to the Department of Justice. That's all well and good, but we
still don't have last year's responses or this year's
responses. I don't think you would tolerate this kind of
response time in FBI investigations.
Before you leave, I will give you a copy and resubmit these
as questions from the Appropriations Committee. Maybe that will
help you get it through the Department of Justice quicker,
because their budget will also come before this subcommittee.
I've also raised with the Attorney General why they take so
long clearing your answers to get them to us. We found last
week that we will not get answers from him, but I would like to
at least get answers from you.
SENTINEL
Now, we're a year into the Sentinel computer upgrade, the
costs go up all time. The FBI informed the Judiciary Committee
you'd encountered unexpected problems with the deployment of
phase one that could delay it. What is the current status of
Sentinel? Do you anticipate additional delays, or cost
overruns?
Mr. Mueller. We are on budget, in fact we're under budget
at this juncture on the first phase of Sentinel. In terms of
the time, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we had hoped
that we would start deployment in April. It looks like it will
be deployed next month.
We are in the final stages of the approval process with the
contractor on phase one. One of the mistakes made by me, I
would say early on, in terms of the computers, was pushing the
process and the schedule. I had pushed hard, but I want to make
certain that when it is deployed--my expectation is next
month--that it works. I meet every week with the Sentinel team.
I monitor it.
Senator Leahy. That's just phase one. That's phase one.
Mr. Mueller. Phase one. That is phase one. Now phase two,
which is the more--in some senses, is the more important
phase--because it addresses more of our business practices. We
have started the planning on phase two. And we will have to--
there are a number of lessons we learned in phase one that
we'll have to implement in phase two.
Senator Leahy. When do you think phase two, the more
important part, will be fully deployed?
Mr. Mueller. I cannot give you an answer now on that.
Senator Leahy. This year?
Mr. Mueller. I would be concerned in giving you an answer.
Senator Leahy. But you don't see it as happening this year?
Mr. Mueller. Not this year. The original expectation was it
would take another year to 18 months after the deployment of
phase one to deploy phase two. But one of the things we learned
in the development of phase one is that some of the things we
anticipated deploying in phases two, three, and four, could
better be moved up and other aspects of it moved down to phase
four. Consequently, we are reviewing the lessons learned in
phase one and over the summer and the fall we'll be determining
how we proceed with phase two, three, and four.
But, at this point, we have no belief that it is over
budget or will be over budget. We have every belief, at this
juncture, that we can do it under budget, in the timeframe that
was originally set out for Sentinel.
Senator Leahy. Well, are you still using Computer Sciences
Corporation and CACI International?
Mr. Mueller. No. Lockheed Martin is our contractor on
Sentinel.
Senator Leahy. Were Computer Sciences Corporation and CACI,
in any way, part of the Sentinel contract team?
Mr. Mueller. There was one aspect--let me just check--there
was one aspect that one of the corporations that was involved
in Virtual Case File is involved with Sentinel. I believe it
was training, but it was a separate company, not part of the
original company handling Virtual Case File. That is the case,
there is one business element of one of those companies, at
this point, that has a small role in Sentinel.
Senator Leahy. Which one?
Mr. Mueller. I believe it's, and I'd like to get back to
you and firm it up, but I think it's Computer Sciences
Corporation, it was bought by DynCorp.
Senator Leahy. Well, please fill that for the record.
Because I think if Computer Sciences and CACI were involved in
the failed Virtual Case File project, I would hate to see them
involved again. I'm also going to ask questions for the record
on the integrated wireless network, 6 years in development,
$195 million already being spent, an anticipated overall cost
of $5 billion, and nobody has anything that works yet.
[The information follows:]
Sentinel Contractors Involved in Virtual Case File
Two vendors are common to both Trilogy and Sentinel:
Computer Science Corporation (CSC) and CACI. The division of
CSC that worked on Trilogy, however, was part of a separate
company at the time and not acquired by CSC until after the
Trilogy contract ended. Furthermore, the after-acquired
division of CSC will not be working on Sentinel, thus we
anticipate little or no overlap of services or personnel. We
have contracted with CACI to provide training for Sentinel,
which was also CACI's role in the Trilogy contract. Training
was not an issue in the execution of the Trilogy contract.
The FBI has strengthened its internal controls to avoid a
repeat of problems experienced with Trilogy. Among other
things, we have improved our contract oversight in two major
ways. First, the Sentinel contract has clear reporting
requirements and severable deliverables. In other words, we can
stop work if we are not satisfied with a contractor's progress.
Second, we have structured our contract management with clearly
defined roles and responsibilities, so accountable personnel
are reviewing all documentation and expenses. That process will
be supplemented by internal audits of our financial management,
as well as external oversight from Congress and the
Administration.
Mr. Mueller. Can I respond briefly, Senator, if we have
time? The Trilogy project was, as you know, three pieces. The
networks, the computers, and two-thirds of it was successful,
the other third was not successful. But I will also say in the
development of the Sentinel project, we have had the inspector
general review us day in and day out, and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), and we have endeavored to keep the
committees apprised of the status of Sentinel, offering weekly
briefings, now giving bi-weekly briefings, too, so that there
is no miscommunication in terms of where we are at any
particular point in time in the development of this project.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Leahy. You know,
what's so great is, on our subcommittee now, we have the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has oversight of the
FBI. We welcome you and your expertise.
Senator Leahy. You might think it's greater than some of
the witnesses might.
Senator Mikulski. And Senator Kohl is also a member of the
Judiciary Committee. Senators, I think the Director would also
be wiling to brief both you and also your Judiciary Committee
staff about the status of Sentinel. I think you'd be heartened
about the progress.
Senator Leahy. He does, he does.
Senator Mikulski. Okay, thank you.
Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
VIOLENT CRIME
Director Mueller, violent crime, as you've said, is on the
rise across the country. When we ask State, local, and Federal
officials in all our communities what needs to be done to get
this problem under better control, they all give the same
answer. They ask for greater Federal funding for State and
local law enforcement. This administration is not giving our
law enforcement officials the help that they need.
For example, in Wisconsin, our share of Byrne funding went
from more than $9 million in fiscal year 2002, all the way down
to less than $3 million in fiscal year 2006. As a result of
cuts to the COPS hiring programs, support to Milwaukee's Police
Department to put more cops on the beat, went from more than $1
million in 2002, down to zero these past 2 years.
It's no surprise that the rise in violent crime has come on
the heels of reductions in this administration's financial
assistance to State and local law enforcement.
Mr. Director, don't you agree that more Federal support for
local law enforcement would greatly help our local communities
in the battle against violent crime?
Mr. Mueller. Well, I certainly am supportive of funding for
State and local law enforcement from a variety of sources,
including Federal. And, I would tell you that I believe that we
work most efficiently when we work together with our State and
local counterparts.
And, what I'd like to see is the funding tied into working
in task forces. We have 131 Safe Street task forces around the
country. It harnesses our ability to reach across jurisdictions
to obtain evidence, to provide forensics help and the like, but
also provides the prioritization of what needs to be addressed
in the community and a task force concept, I think, is
tremendously important when you address gangs and some of the
contributing factors to violent crime.
So, I am, I have been and will continue to be, supportive
of enhanced funding to State and local law enforcement in hopes
that that funding will also be tied to participation on task
forces, so that we maximize our work together.
Senator Kohl. Well is this an ongoing kind of a process?
Because, as I said, the direct funding for things like Byrne
and COPS has gone down. Has it been augmented in some other way
to local law enforcement?
Mr. Mueller. Again, I am supportive of funding the State
and local law enforcement.
Senator Kohl. Right.
Mr. Mueller. And, I'll leave the details up to the
Department of Justice, that is the conduit for those grants.
Senator Kohl. But the problem is so severe out there, you
know, that the question of where does it come from is not
nearly as important as getting the money out there so that our
local law enforcement people can do their job more effectively.
Not 2 or 3 or 4 years from now, but yesterday and today. Isn't
that true?
Mr. Mueller. I am absolutely supportive of funding for
State and local law enforcement and, as I said I believe, I am
also supportive in the context of doing it so that we work
together.
What we find, I will tell you, is it is increasingly
difficult for State and local law enforcement to assign
personnel to task forces because of the reduction in personnel.
My belief is that task forces are tremendously important, and
we ought to focus on the funding for State and local law
enforcement in such a way that it enhances our joint efforts to
address violent crime or counterterrorism or other threats,
including cyber-crime and crimes against children, in a way
that enhances our ability to work together and serves as an
incentive for us to work together.
COPS PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. All right. Just talk about the COPS program
and get some comment from you. The overall COPS program was
funded just a few years ago at more than $1 billion and this
year the President's request for $32 million really means,
basically, the end of the program. Last year in my home town of
Milwaukee, the police department had approximately 200
vacancies in an ideal force of 2,000. We used to have a program
to deal with that problem and it was called, The Cops Universal
Hiring Program. And, that program was instrumental at reducing
crime in the 1990s.
Unfortunately that program has been entirely eliminated in
this administration. So, would you agree that we need a new
commitment to the COPS program? Especially when we're
witnessing a surge in violent crime in our mid-size cities and
other sized cities all across our country. Don't you agree that
we need to increase Federal funding in order to help put more
police on the streets?
Mr. Mueller. Without regard to a particular program, I am
supportive of enhanced funding for State and local law
enforcement, particularly funding to working cooperatively
between ourselves, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), and the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), without regard to a particular vehicle.
I think the vehicle is less important than the fact that we
address the threats that are out there, when it comes to the
uptick in violent crime. I attended a meeting a couple days ago
at the National Academy of Sciences. One of the issues
discussed by a number of very influential and capable
professors from around the country was why this uptick. You can
look at the statistics across the Nation, but then every
community is somewhat different.
What you do not want to do is, necessarily, just throw in
resources without understanding what the problem is, what the
solution is, and then assign those resources to effect that
solution.
In my own mind, most of the threats cross jurisdictional
borders now. The solution comes from working together,
ourselves with State and local law enforcement. To the extent
that local communities cannot afford the participation of State
and local law enforcement on task forces, I believe there has
to be a mechanism someplace, through some vehicle, so that
there is an incentive for us to work together and that we
address these issues, together, as opposed to addressing them
individually. Because I think we're far more effective when we
do it jointly.
Senator Kohl. I thank you so much.
And, I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, thank you, Director Mueller, for being here and for
providing the leadership that you do for this important arm of
our protection and safety in our society.
Oddly enough, Senator Kohl, my friend and colleague, hit on
the subject, COPS. And, as I was looking over my notes, the
thought occurred to me and I found out that at one point there
were 120,000 police on the streets, 5,000 in my State of New
Jersey from COPS. And, then your notes, Director, in your
comments you say access to local law enforcement partners in
the fight against violent crime, access to these crime-solving
services and capabilities are more important in a post-9/11
environment. So, it's hard to understand why that program might
be eliminated when we need all the help we can get.
GUNS TO TERRORISTS
Let me get on to something that's come about. A GAO report
that I requested in 2005 revealed that 35 known or suspected
terrorists bought guns in a 5-month period of 2004. And, then I
asked you to review what legislative changes might be needed,
and you wrote me in March 2005--so, we're looking back more
than 2 years--that Department of Justice create a working group
to look into this.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice sent me, Vice
President Cheney, and House Speaker Pelosi, a proposal to give
the Attorney General the discretion to deny guns to terrorists.
Do you think 2 years to move on something as sensitive and as
helpful as this could be, borders on either outright neglect or
lack of interest in the proposal? Should known terrorists be
allowed to buy guns at all?
Mr. Mueller. I can't speak to the delay, Senator. I think
before one reaches any conclusion as to the delay, one would
want to know what kind of dialogue there has been, whether it
be within the administration, or between the administration and
Congress. I see it was submitted yesterday. I would ask the
opportunity to go back to look at this and then, to the extent
that you have further questions in terms of what this
legislation does, I'd be happy to answer them.
Senator Lautenberg. Okay. But, and the last part of my
question, should one's name on a terror list be sufficient
evidence to not allow a gun to be purchased? What do you think?
Mr. Mueller. I think it depends on the circumstances. There
are gradations. I do not want guns in the hands of terrorists.
You look at what happened at Virginia Tech recently, and it
calls for a revisiting of the legislation, not just at the
national level, but at the State level in terms of the
production of medical records and particular mental health
records----
Senator Lautenberg. Okay. Thanks.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. When it comes to purchasing a
weapon.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Mueller. The one thing that
we do know is that you're an intelligent, educated man, and I
find it surprising that we can't get a specific answer that
says, ``No, they're terrorists.'' If you were good enough to
use a somewhat humorous description, to get, to make it to the
terrorist list and you can still buy a gun in this country, I
think that suggests that there's a weakness there someplace.
BACKGROUND CHECKS TO INVESTIGATE CRIME
I want to get on to something else. Would there be any
value, Mr. Mueller, to permit law enforcement to use background
check records to investigate crime, perhaps even in the case of
terrorism?
Mr. Mueller. I'm somewhat uncertain of the question.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, that is----
Mr. Mueller. Because, quite obviously, we use background
information, to investigate allegations of terrorism.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. Let me go to the little,
expansion of that. Do you think that destroying records that
were used in approving a gun purchase in just 24 hours, is a
good idea? Perhaps you can explain--well, let me get the answer
to part a, then we'll go to part b.
Mr. Mueller. Well, I know there's been substantial debate
on how long records are retained. There's a substantial
argument in my mind for retaining records for a substantial
period of time, but this is an area where the policymakers will
advise and then we will follow.
Senator Lautenberg. Fair enough. I'm glad that you concur
with my view. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thanks.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
Well, Director, we are moving expeditiously to get you to
where you need to go.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. I have two questions, one related to
intelligence analysts and then the other to what we need to be
able to train them.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS
I am tremendously impressed with the FBI intelligence
analysts that I've met, both overseas and here. But here goes
to my questions. Two years ago, the IG released a report that
nearly one-third of the intelligence analysts positions were
unfilled because of rapid turnover and other problems and also,
at that time morale was low, and there was a difficulty in
retention. Can you tell us what you've been able to do over the
last 2 years with the issues raised by that? Do you remember
that?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And, then what are you doing to improve
the training and retention of the intel analysts, particularly,
you know, you had the agents on the street, but it is the
analyst that's supposed to help the policymakers and the
enforcers to connect the dots.
The so-called ``connect the dot'' problem.
Mr. Mueller. We have tremendously talented analysts. We've
doubled our analyst cadre since September 11, and the
qualifications and capabilities of the analysts are superb.
They have become an indispensable asset not just at
headquarters, but in every office around the country.
The inspector general recently had a further report, in
which, it was pointed out that we had a shortfall of 400
analysts in 2006 that we had not brought onboard. He indicated
part of it was attributable to the length of time it took to
get an analyst onboard. But, I will tell you, part of it, also,
was our recalibration of our strength in what was called
``hollow work-years'' that had developed over a period of time.
And so, we have a shortfall, currently, of approximately 160
analysts who we're trying to bring onboard. And, we will over
the next months and into next year.
The delay in bringing people onboard that the IG mentioned,
as well, is in some part attributable to the fact that we want
to give them training. We want them to start the job with the
training, and without slots for the training, we're delayed
longer than we would like. And, I will tell you also, we are
revamping the training. We have continuously done so--
particularly in the wake of September 11, but we continue to
revamp the training to make it more successful, I will tell
you, more effective.
The other thing that the IG, I think, pointed out is that
most of the analysts we brought onboard are exceptionally happy
working at the FBI, enjoy their job, anticipate staying, so
we're not, we are not where we would like to be. I'm not
certain we would ever be there. I think we've made substantial
strides with the analytical cadre.
Senator Mikulski. Yes, because that will go to training in
Quantico.
Senator Shelby, you want to jump in here?
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, we realize it's--it's
difficult and tedious to train analysts and, but in the
recruitment area, because--how are you doing there? Because
you're recruiting in the marketplace with everybody else?
Mr. Mueller. Very well, very well.
Senator Shelby. And, that's very important.
Mr. Mueller. In the training, we have structured training
so the analysts train with the agents for much of their time at
Quantico, so there is an understanding of the kind of
contributing skills that make us more successful.
The fact of the matter is, as the organization grows, the
credibility and the capability of the analysts will impress the
rest of the organization and bring us into more of a team than,
perhaps, we've been in past years. And, both through the
training, the working together, and the types of cases, whether
they be intelligence or criminal that we're working, I think
we're making strides there.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
TRAINING AT QUANTICO
Senator Mikulski. Which takes me to Quantico. Because all
FBI agents and analysts, regardless of their responsibility are
trained at Quantico, am I correct?
Mr. Mueller. Well----
Senator Mikulski. Well, is it prime? Is my question.
Mr. Mueller. All agents are trained at Quantico. There are
areas of training that we do outside of Quantico, but certainly
all new agents and analysts go through Quantico.
Senator Mikulski. Right. So, but, Quantico is the starting
point?
Mr. Mueller. It is.
Senator Mikulski. It is the starting point. Now, from what
I understand from staff visits to Quantico, that Quantico
because of when it was built, its original mission, which was
the pre-9/11 FBI, that this is pretty dated, both in terms of
being able to handle the number of people you wish to train,
and what is required in unique training facilities now, with
technology, et cetera. Could you share with the subcommittee
what you think we need to do to help you, to kind of,
reinvigorate Quantico? So that when these talented people come
to serve, and you have the curriculum to do it, that we're all
helping you move in the direction we want you to move in?
Mr. Mueller. We've had problems with the buildings at
Quantico. It's years and years, I can't tell you exactly, but
tens of years old. We've had problems, for instance, with
information technology and instituting it there because it was
not set up with the modern capabilities.
As we look 5 years down the road to the FBI, training is
going to have to be expanded at Quantico, but also other places
in the country. One of the gems, the jewels of the FBI is the
National Academy, where every year we educate somewhat more
than 1,000 State, local and, as important if not more
important, foreign officers who become colleagues of ours, and
my hope is that we could expand the National Academy. Because I
think it's a jewel and it's tremendously important to the
United States, not just domestically to have the capacity, but
for the intersection of ourselves and the future with our
counterparts overseas, to have that type of, not only dialogue,
but building of relationships.
So, whether it be National Academy, the agents, the
professional staff, analysts, we are going to be looking at our
5-year plan for expanding--not just renovating at Quantico--but
looking at opportunities elsewhere as well.
And, we cannot continue to build a national security
function, and continue to do what we do on the criminal side
without enhanced facilities.
I will make one last plea, if I could, and that is, we are
asked to be and appropriately so, I believe, the domestic
intelligence agency for national security.
Senator Mikulski. That's a pretty big deal.
Mr. Mueller. Part of the intelligence community. We have a
single funding stream that comes through Commerce, Justice, and
Science, as opposed to being looked, from the funding
perspective, as part of the intelligence community. And, my
request is that, if we have the responsibility and the role
that I believe we should have, we should be looked at as a
member of the intelligence community from the perspective of
funding.
Senator Mikulski. You mean through an intel authorization?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Well, you know we can't get one through
the Congress, so you actually get a better deal coming through
us. We hear what you say.
Mr. Mueller. Well, when I look at the various budgets, I'm
not----
Senator Mikulski. Well, no, we understand that it, and
again, this is an environment we can not discuss it.
Mr. Mueller. Right.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby chaired the Intel
Committee and, of course, I'm a very proud member. And,
Director, we would suggest that this is something we three
could talk about, about what is the most effective way.
One quick question. When is this 5-year plan going to be
done?
Mr. Mueller. I believe we could start briefing you on it,
probably, in a month.
Senator Mikulski. Well, one of which, too, will be the
issue related to facilities because if we have to get started,
then those things, as you know, are an extensive look ahead.
So, we'll look forward to that.
But, listen, we promised you you'd be on your way and we
want to thank you today for your testimony.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are no further questions, Senators may submit
questions for the record. We would appreciate the FBI's written
response within 30 days. We, Mr. Director, we look forward to
an ongoing conversation with you, once we get our allocation
and so, we want to get you on your way.
And, we say to Eleni and Paul, good luck as they go on
their new ways.
[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 Patrick J. Leahy
sentinel
Question. Now a year into the Bureau's Sentinel computer upgrade
program, I remain concerned about the prospect of this program and its
ballooning costs to American taxpayers. Last month, the FBI informed
the Judiciary Committee that it had encountered unexpected problems
with the deployment of Phase 1 of the Sentinel program that would delay
the program. Even more troubling, the FBI could not tell Judiciary
Committee staff how long it would take to remedy these problems, or how
the delay would impact the overall schedule for Sentinel.
Director Mueller, what is the current status of the Sentinel
program and do you anticipate that there will be additional delays in
deploying the program or costs overruns?
Answer. The FBI has implemented Phase 1 of the Sentinel Project and
our agents are now using it. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, has
completed the design, development, and testing of the Phase 1
functionality and the FBI administered a two-week system acceptance
test, which was followed by user acceptance testing. The system was
then incrementally deployed and piloted in the Baltimore, Washington,
and Richmond Field Offices and in one Division at FBI Headquarters
(FBIHQ). In addition to testing the system's functionality, the pilot
also assisted in testing the load of users on the system and in
assessing the adequacy of the training materials.
After changing the deployment approach to allow for a pilot period,
the system was delivered to all users. Changes in the deployment
approach and delivery schedule were made to ensure an accurate
measurement of performance by testing it with actual users, rather than
through controlled testing.
The Sentinel Program Management Office and Lockheed Martin prepared
users for training and deployment, training nearly 250 field office and
FBIHQ users as Sentinel Training Advisors. This group is assisting
contract instructors in providing training and assisting users in their
divisions when questions arise. The training curriculum and materials
continue to be refined to incorporate system updates and trainee
feedback.
Question. What impact have the delays with Sentinel--and Trilogy
before it--had on the Bureau's ability to fulfill its core mission?
Answer. The delays in updating the FBI's computer systems have had
very little impact on the Bureau's ability to fulfill its core mission.
All components of the FBI's Automated Case Support (ACS) system have
continued to be operational and this information will be migrated to
Sentinel. Phase 1 provides Sentinel's foundational base and enhanced
access to the information contained in ACS. Phase 2 will bring
additional capabilities to the users, including automated workflow,
document and record management, public-key infrastructure, digital
signatures, and role-based access controls.
Question. The December 2006 OIG audit report questioned the
reliability of the total estimated costs for the program. How confident
are you about the final cost estimate for the Sentinel program?
Answer. The estimated costs for the Sentinel program were developed
consistent with the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR), the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Information Technology Investment
Management (ITIM) process, and the FBI's Life Cycle Management
Directive (LCMD) process. The FBI anticipates total program costs of
approximately $425 million, including costs for development, program
management, Independent Verification and Validation, and two years of
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) after we reach full operating
capability. Any changes to those estimates will be vetted through the
ITIM and LCMD boards, documented in accordance with the FAR, and
provided to Congress.
Question. Based on this cost estimate, how much additional funding
or reprogrammed funds will the FBI require to complete this program? If
reprogramming is required, what programs do you anticipate will lose
funds?
Answer. The FBI determined that no additional reprogramming was
required for fiscal year 2007 Sentinel operations. The funding
requested in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget, in combination
with the fiscal year 2007 reprogramming for Sentinel, funded O&M for
Phase 1 and system development, training, and program management costs
budgeted for Phase 2. Funding for Phases 3 and 4 and for the remainder
of O&M for all Phases will be requested in future budget submissions.
As noted in the response to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG),
the FBI evaluates the operational impact of any proposed reprogramming
and takes that impact into consideration in all reprogramming
decisions. The FBI routinely provides this impact assessment and other
relevant information to DOJ, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and Congress.
Question. I am troubled by reports that two of the companies that
are part of the Sentinel contract team--Computer Sciences Corp. and
CACI International Inc.--also played roles in the earlier failed
Trilogy effort. How do you justify entrusting these companies with
taxpayer funds again?
Answer. Two vendors are common to both Trilogy and Sentinel--
Computer Science Corporation (CSC) and CACI International, Inc. The
division of CSC that worked on Trilogy (and actually a separate firm at
the time of its Trilogy work, acquired by CSC thereafter) will not be
working on Sentinel, so we anticipate little or no overlap of services
or personnel. We have contracted with CACI to provide training for
Sentinel, which was also the purpose of the Trilogy contract.
The FBI has strengthened its internal controls to avoid a repeat of
the issues cited by the Trilogy auditors with respect to all vendors.
Among other things, we have improved our contract oversight in two
major ways. First, the Sentinel contract has clear reporting
requirements and severable deliverables. In other words, we can stop
work if we are not satisfied with a contractor's progress. Second, we
have structured our contract management with clearly defined roles and
responsibilities, so accountable personnel are reviewing all
documentation and expenses. That process will be supplemented by
internal audits of our financial management, as well as by oversight
from Congress and the Administration.
violent crime
Question. Recently, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that
since the terrorist attacks of September 11 the number of criminal
investigations conducted by the FBI has declined significantly, and
white collar investigations in particular have dropped precipitously.
Many cases that would have been pursued in the past are simply going
unsolved. I have asked you in the past about declining prosecutions of
public corruption cases and this study shows that the problem is even
broader than was previously known. While it is crucial that the FBI
devote all necessary resources to protecting the country from
terrorism, that effort should not be at the expense of protecting the
country from crime.
Americans count on the FBI to aggressively investigate crime,
particularly those types of crime that cannot always be adequately
addressed by the states, like corruption, fraud, civil rights offenses,
and the most serious violent crime. The FBI's apparent retreat from
fulfilling these core duties comes at a time of rising violent crime
rates in the country and dwindling public confidence in the
Department's objective handling of corruption cases.
Is the FBI capable of handling the dual tasks of protecting the
country from terrorism and aggressively enforcing the nation's criminal
laws at the same time? Why have you not been getting the job done?
What steps is the FBI taking to make sure that it does not
sacrifice crucial criminal investigations and prosecutions as a result
of increased emphasis on terrorism?
Answer. The number of FBI Special Agents (SAs) assigned to criminal
cases has decreased by 1,335, or 21 percent, since the attacks of 9/11/
01. Despite the loss of those SA positions, protecting the nation from
traditional criminal offenses has always remained a core function of
the FBI, and 53 percent of all FBI SAs remain assigned to these
criminal matters.
To address this decrease, the FBI has made difficult choices in
determining how to most effectively use the available agents. In 2002,
the FBI established as its criminal program priorities: public
corruption, civil rights, transnational and national criminal
enterprises (which include violent gangs and the MS-13 initiative),
white collar crimes (which include corporate fraud and health care
fraud), and violent crimes (which include crimes against children).
Since the designation of public corruption as the top criminal
priority, over 280 additional agents have been shifted from other
criminal duties to address corruption cases. The FBI is singularly
situated to conduct these difficult investigations, and our
effectiveness is demonstrated by the conviction of more than 1,000
corrupt government employees in the past two years.
The FBI has also maintained a steady commitment to addressing civil
rights matters. Pending Color of Law (excessive force) investigations
increased 25 percent from 2001 to 2007, and Human Trafficking cases
increased 323 percent during the same period. FBI investigations of
Human Trafficking resulted in 29 indictments in 2001; since then there
have been an average of 48 each year.
The FBI has addressed violent street gang matters through the
establishment of Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces (VGSSTFs) that
leverage Federal, state, and local law enforcement resources to
investigate violent gangs in large, medium, and small cities and towns.
There are currently 135 VGSSTFs composed of 600 FBI SAs and 1,170
state/local law enforcement officers.
Although the FBI has had to reduce the number of SAs working
Governmental fraud matters since 9/11/01, FBI agents still respond to
serious crime problems, as demonstrated by the FBI's current
initiatives to address hurricane-related fraud and Iraq contract fraud.
The FBI also prioritizes investigations within its White Collar
Crime Program, emphasizing corporate/securities fraud and health care
fraud. The corporate fraud cases, in particular, are very labor
intensive, but they are a priority for the FBI because so many
represent the private industry equivalent of public corruption, where
the dishonest actions of a few people in leadership positions cause
tremendous monetary losses and undermine investor confidence, both of
which can threaten economic stability.
The FBI's priorities have resulted in less of an emphasis on
investigating traditional drug trafficking cases and more emphasis on
assigning SAs to established Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force (OCDETF) strike forces and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDTA) initiatives that target violent gangs whose members are
involved in drug trafficking.
The FBI has also shifted criminal resources to implement the child
prostitution initiative and the Violent Crime Task Force initiative.
The child prostitution initiative is a coordinated national effort to
combat child prostitution through joint investigations and task forces
that include FBI, state, and local law enforcement, along with juvenile
probation agencies. This initiative has resulted in more than 500 child
prostitution arrests (local and Federal combined), 101 indictments, 67
convictions, and the identification, location, and/or recovery of 200
children. To address violent crime, the FBI has partnered with other
state and local law enforcement agencies to create 24 Violent Crime
Task Forces throughout the United States. The FBI also funds and
operates 18 Safe Trails Task Forces (STTFs) to address violent crime in
Indian Country (IC).
In addition to the above initiatives, the FBI has continuously
worked to use technology, intelligence analysis, and enhanced response
capability to leverage criminal program resources. In October 2005, the
National Crime Information Center's fugitive database was integrated
with the Department of State passport application system, resulting in
automatic notification when fugitives apply for United States
passports. In December 2005, eight Child Abduction Rapid Deployment
Teams were established in four regions of the United States. These
teams are available to augment field office resources during the
crucial initial stages of a child abduction. The FBI is currently
developing a means of integrating sex offender registries and other
public databases to better identify sex offenders in the vicinities of
child abductions and to ``flag'' sex offenders who have changed
locations without satisfying registration requirements.
Question. Congress has always been willing to support both of these
core missions. We have up to now been given the impression that the FBI
was getting sufficient resources to do these jobs effectively. What
more does the FBI need to live up to its responsibilities?
Answer. The FBI has appreciated the support of Congress in ensuring
that we have the necessary resources to deter and respond to terrorism
and other crimes. We will continue to work with DOJ, the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, OMB, and the Congress to assess what
resources are necessary to meet our responsibilities, consistent with
Executive Branch priorities.
integrated wireless network
Question. I was interested to see the March 2006 audit report by
the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General regarding the
progress of the joint Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) for the
Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury. The OIG found
that despite over 6 years of development and more than $195 million
being spent on the IWN--out of an estimated $5 billion in total
estimated costs with a goal of supporting 81,000 federal agents by
2021--DOJ law enforcement agents have received little in the way of
new, secure, compliant radio equipment through IWN. The causes for the
risk of failure include uncertain funding to complete the project,
disparate departmental funding mechanisms, a fractured IWN partnership,
and the lack of an effective governing structure for the project. What
results from this partnership likely will not be the seamless,
interoperable system that was originally envisioned and therefore the
communication systems may not be adequate in the event of another
terrorist attack or national disaster.
The OIG offered four recommendations for the Justice Department in
attempting to avoid the IWN train wreck looming on the horizon.
Do you feel that those recommendations should be followed in order
for the IWN to become the seamless, interoperable system originally
envisioned? If not, why and how best do you feel the goal of a
seamless, interoperable system would be reached?
Answer. While a valid goal, seamless interoperability does not
address the immediate needs of DOJ components. The nationwide trunked
network originally envisioned by some has not been a simple or easy
undertaking (as demonstrated by the challenges encountered in
Washington State). A single nationwide system would put those users on
the same network, but this would not always make the best use of the
available spectrum. Using trunked networks within a single band (which
are more spectrally efficient than large-scale, multi-channel
conventional systems) would not resolve the interoperability issues
inherent in a system in which Federal, state, and local users use
alternate frequency bands.
Evolutionary solutions would provide opportunities for components
to address their own internal requirements while addressing
interoperability needs and unnecessary redundancy among DOJ components.
Current FBI Land Mobile Radio (LMR) systems using the Digital
Encryption Standard (DES), which is no longer approved for use in
Sensitive but Unclassified systems, put users at risk for potential
compromise. These antiquated component systems must be upgraded to meet
security requirements (such as the Advanced Encryption Standard) while
satisfying the narrowband mandate and providing enhanced feature sets.
Future capabilities will include not only multiband, multimode
radios, but the ability to interoperate with state and local partners
through multiple gateways.
Question. What part, if any, has the FBI played in implementing
those recommendations? How would you define the Bureau's commitment and
funding requirements to support the network?
Answer. The FBI has been working with others in DOJ since 1999,
providing both technical expertise and personnel in their planning,
design, infrastructure installation, site leasing, spectrum
coordination, equipment testing, and decommissioning efforts, among
others. For example, FBI personnel in both Seattle and Portland have
played an active role in Integrated Wireless Network (IWN)
implementation, providing expertise and support in order to help make
the network there a functional reality.
The FBI's current network infrastructure includes over 3,000 sites
nationwide, and the cost of system maintenance, site leases, and
circuit costs are directly affected by IWN's size and capabilities.
Reduction of the FBI's maintenance costs depends on the installation of
new equipment as part of either IWN or FBI system/network upgrades.
Cost savings can be realized either by fully implementing IWN as
envisioned and decommissioning FBI sites or by downsizing DOJ
components where permitted by system sharing.
Question. Through fiscal year 2006, approximately $772 million has
been appropriated to fund the DOJ Narrowband Communications Account.
However, instead of funding new technological solutions and upgrades,
nearly two-thirds of this funding has been used to maintain DOJ's
antiquated legacy systems. The OIG report found that the majority of
DOJ's communications systems are obsolete because the manufacturers no
longer support them, maintenance is difficult and spare parts are hard
to find. As the DOJ equipment continues to age, these costs are
expected to increase by five percent each year.
Between a lack of money because funds that should be used for new
technology solutions and upgrades are being poured into DOJ's antiquate
legacy systems, and the rising cost of operating and maintaining legacy
communications, can you tell me when you expect the IWN to be up and
running so that the Bureau's agents can access and use the latest in
interoperable technologies to communicate and coordinate with their
fellow federal, state and local law enforcement partners?
Answer. Full migration to a new, DOJ-level, trunked VHF network
requires not only extensive planning and spectrum coordination, but
also site preparation and circuit leasing, and these to a much greater
extent than if the upgrade were to a single organization's system. In
order to deploy new systems, several issues must be addressed. For
example, we must upgrade radios in the field as necessary; address
licensing limitations and the need for compatibility with
manufacturers' infrastructures; either negotiate new site leases or
modify existing leases based on new requirements; address access and
security requirements; and realign and approve spectrum allocations
while formulating transition schedules. In the interim, although aging
wideband legacy LMR systems are antiquated, they can be upgraded to
newer, narrowband, conventional equipment relatively easily, networks
can be expanded, and capabilities enhanced.
O&M expenses are a significant part of the cost of any large-scale
system or network. Site repairs, security upgrades, network expansion,
radio installations, personnel, and training are among the areas funded
by DOJ components before the consolidation of those individual
resources. The integration of multiple systems requires experienced
engineers and government personnel who understand implementation needs
to ensure proper oversight, control, and system availability. For
example, even following integration, these networks must remain
functional at key local levels during times of crises to ensure the
public is protected if one agency or one part of the system is
compromised.
Question. What impact has the lack of a functioning IWN had on the
FBI's ability to carryout its counterterrorism mission?
Answer. Absent the ability to communicate securely with other
investigative personnel, FBI personnel use other alternatives, such as
commercial services. Commercial devices operate on commercial networks,
which may have inadequate capacity in times of crises, may not meet
security requirements, and may operate only in areas with adequate
infrastructure. For example, commercial LMR peer-to-peer (device-to-
device) capabilities usually require that the infrastructure be
operational at the time of attempted communication. In the absence of
secure communications capabilities, outsiders (including suspects) can
use frequency monitoring devices (scanners) to track unencrypted online
communications. Unlike most portable devices currently used by the FBI
in the field, newer radio models are smaller, can be used to send e-
mails and broadcast messages, provide greater voice clarity, and regain
range that is lost to systems using DES encryption.
intellectual property enforcement
Question. By some government estimates, U.S. companies suffer $250
billion in annual losses due to intellectual property theft, which also
causes U.S. workers to lose millions of jobs. Aggressive investigation
and prosecution of IP crimes is clearly needed to deter such massive
infringement. In recognition of this need, the Justice Department's IP
Task Force, in its October 2004 Report and a subsequent June 2006
Progress Report, recommended increasing the number of FBI agents
investigating intellectual property crimes.
Would you agree with the Task Force's recommendation that, to
effectively deter rampant IP infringement, there should be an increase
in the number of FBI agents dedicated to investigating IP crimes?
Answer. The FBI SAs assigned to cyber crime programs in the FBI's
field offices address intellectual property (IP) infringement matters
in the same manner as they address other FBI violations, which is based
upon FBI investigative priorities. IP infringement matters that pose a
threat to national security (such as certain thefts of trade secrets)
are the FBI's highest IP infringement priority. The number of SAs
working IP matters has decreased since fiscal year 2005 due to the
November 2004 re-ordering of cyber priorities, pursuant to which
Innocent Images matters were placed in a higher priority than IP
rights. In fiscal year 2005 there were approximately 56 SAs working IP
investigations, while in June 2007 there were 48.
national security letters
Question. Director Mueller, as you know, I am very concerned about
the widespread abuse of National Security Letters (``NSLs'') at the
FBI. Last month, the Justice Department's Inspector General recently
reported on a pattern of unacceptable abuses of NSLs by the FBI, where
time and time again the FBI did not follow the law, or even its own
rules, in obtaining sensitive personal information about thousands of
ordinary Americans and others. According to the Inspector General's
report, one in every five of the NSL files reviewed contained
violations of the law, and more than half of the NSLs reviewed did not
even meet the FBI's own standards. During the FBI Oversight hearing
that the Judiciary Committee held last month, you promised to promptly
address the serious lapses with NSLs.
Director, what are you doing to make sure that the FBI follows the
law--and its own policies--when issuing National Security Letters going
forward?
Answer. As a result of the OIG report, the FBI has prepared
comprehensive guidance concerning the use of National Security Letters
(NSLs). Every proposed NSL must be reviewed by the Chief Division
Counsel in each FBI field office or by an attorney in the National
Security Law Branch (NSLB) at FBIHQ, including review of the relevance
of the request to an authorized investigation and the predication for
that investigation. In addition, NSLB is developing a training
curriculum, which will be mandatory for all employees involved in the
NSL process, to address problems created by confusion and lack of
familiarity with the provisions and requirements of the various
statutes authorizing NSLs. Even before the OIG report was published,
the FBI had begun work on a database, based on the successful ``FISA
Management System,'' that will permit the electronic transfer of NSL-
related data between databases (this transfer is currently being
accomplished manually). Finally, the Inspection Division is
investigating in more detail many of the problems identified in the OIG
report. This review should identify any areas that require closer
scrutiny. Taken together, these measures will both provide a more user-
friendly business process for FBI personnel who use NSLs as an
investigative technique and enhance management's audit and oversight
capabilities. This system will also enhance the accuracy of the NSL
reports provided to Congress.
The FBI has also recognized the need to create a compliance program
to ensure we have appropriate policies, procedures, audit capabilities,
and training for all our activities. The FBI's compliance program will
be modeled after similar programs in the public and private sectors.
While it is too early to say with certainty what the program will look
like, it will most likely incorporate features common to most
successful programs, such as a written compliance policy, a central
compliance officer and office, a senior-level compliance committee,
access to and the ability to draw upon the resources of the
organization, and an implementing strategy that adjusts as new threats
and programs are identified. Audits of practices, not just procedures,
will be an essential component of the program, as will effective ``two-
way'' communication channels. In addition, OGC will continue to meet
regularly with DOJ's National Security Division (NSD) to discuss
appropriate policies in the national security arena. DOJ's NSD and the
FBI's NSLB conducted 14 national security reviews of the FBI's field
offices and one of an FBI Headquarters Division in calendar year 2007.
There are 14 national security reviews of the FBI's field offices and
one of an FBI Headquarters Division planned for calendar year 2008.
Those reviews will include, but not be limited to, the use of NSLs.
Question. One of the most disturbing findings in the Inspector
General's Report was that the FBI improperly issued more than 700 so-
called ``exigent letters,'' seeking telephone and financial records on
an emergency basis, which contained blatant factual misrepresentations.
Is the FBI still using these so-called ``exigent letters,'' and if so,
based upon what legal authority?
Answer. The OIG identified four problems with the so-called exigent
letters as they were used by the FBI's Communications Analysis Unit
(CAU): (1) although the letter asserted there were exigent
circumstances, that was not always the case; (2) the CAU maintained no
records supporting the claimed emergency; (3) although many of the
letters asserted that a Federal grand jury subpoena had been requested,
in fact, in most circumstances a grand jury subpoena had not been
requested and the intent was to provide the carrier with an NSL; and
(4) in many cases, although subsequent legal process had been promised
to the carrier, no process (neither a grand jury subpoena nor an NSL)
was delivered in a timely fashion.
It was not until the FBI received the draft OIG report that
executive leadership became aware of the full scope of the problems
with the use of the so-called exigent letters. Upon learning of this
matter, the FBI worked quickly to develop policy that would address the
shortcomings identified in the OIG report without undermining the FBI's
ability to receive information under 18 U.S.C. 2702(c)(4), a critical
provision allowing communications service providers to give the
government information in certain emergency circumstances. That policy,
which was issued on 3/1/07, discontinued the use of ``exigent letters''
of the sort described in the OIG report, but affirmed that the FBI may
continue to receive information pursuant to section 2702. The new form
2702 letter makes it very clear that: production of the records is at
the carrier's discretion; no other legal process is promised; and, by
policy, the emergency justifying this requirement must be documented.
Accordingly, the FBI believes the new policy deals precisely with the
problems identified by the OIG and appropriately balances privacy
concerns with investigative needs in case of dire, life-threatening
emergencies.
privacy/dna sampling
Question. Pursuant to a little noticed provision in the Violence
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005,
the Justice Department is developing new guidelines that would greatly
expand the government's ability to collect DNA samples--which reveal
the most sensitive genetic information about an individual--from most
individuals who are arrested or detained by federal authorities. Under
this policy, the Government will store this sensitive biological
information in a federal data base known as the National DNA Index
System.
I am very concerned about the privacy implications of this new
policy because, unlike fingerprinting--which is commonly used as a
means of identification--DNA profiles reveal all kinds of sensitive
biological information about a person, including the presence of a
physical disease or mental disorder.
Director Mueller, what privacy protections are in place under these
new guidelines to ensure that sensitive DNA data contained in the
National DNA Index System will not be misused or improperly disclosed
by the Justice Department?
Answer. While the FBI is working with others in DOJ to finalize the
regulations on DNA sample collection relative to federal arrestees and
detainees, there are already a number of protections in place and they
are vigorously enforced. When arrestee and detainee DNA samples are
collected, they are placed in the National DNA Index System (NDIS)
offender database. The offender and crime scene databases are populated
by profiles from Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
The profiles within the database use only genetic markers that provide
identification; no other genetic information, such as medical status,
can be gleaned from these markers, and NDIS, which is in essence a
pointer system, does not contain any names or personally identifying
information. Instead, each profile is associated with a unique
identifier that traces back to the laboratory that developed that
particular profile and placed it in the database. Once a ``hit'' occurs
and is confirmed, then the two laboratories involved will exchange
information regarding the individual involved.
Although all states participate in NDIS, they do not have direct
access to the national database. NDIS is searched once a week at the
FBI and a hit report is generated. If an individual lab wants to follow
up on a particular hit (generally the lab that contributed the forensic
sample), it contacts the laboratory that provided the offender
information and a confirmation process begins. During that process, the
laboratories follow written procedures to ensure the hit is related to
the correct offender; these procedures include re-working a portion of
the remaining sample and re-comparing results. Under procedures
established by the NDIS Board, no names or other personally identifying
information may be reported until the confirmation process is complete.
Federal law also provides privacy protections, including criminal
penalties. By law, NDIS may only include DNA information that is:
Maintained by Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies
(or the Secretary of Defense in accordance with section 1565 of Title
10) pursuant to rules that allow disclosure of stored DNA samples and
DNA analyses only--
--(A) to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement identification
purposes;
--(B) in judicial proceedings, if otherwise admissible pursuant to
applicable statutes or rules;
--(C) for criminal defense purposes, to a defendant, who shall have
access to samples and analyses performed in connection with the
case in which such defendant is charged; or
--(D) if personally identifiable information is removed, for a
population statistics database, for identification research and
protocol and development purposes, or for quality control
purposes. (42 U.S.C. 14132(b)(3).)
These protections are further bolstered by provisions that
reiterate these protections and provide criminal penalties for
individuals who knowingly disclose DNA information from the database to
a person or agency not authorized to receive it. (See, for example, 42
U.S.C. 14133(c) and 42 U.S.C. 14135e(c).)
Finally, we are conducting a privacy impact assessment to analyze
how this DNA information will be handled, determine risks from
processing this information, and identify protections to help mitigate
any privacy risks.
Question. Another concern that I have about this policy is that it
will just add to the already notorious backlog at the FBI's laboratory.
According to press reports, the FBI acknowledges that this new policy
will result in an increase of as many as one million additional DNA
samples a year. Is the Bureau's laboratory equipped to handle this
additional workload?
Answer. The FBI's Federal Convicted Offender (FCO) Program is
responsible for collecting and processing DNA samples collected from
those convicted of Federal felonies for the purpose of retention and
cataloging in the FBI's National DNA Database. The FCO Program supplies
collection kits and receives samples from over 500 collection sites
across the country. Since the program's inception in June 2001, over
225,000 samples have been received. The FCO Program currently receives
7,000 to 8,000 samples monthly. To date, the FCO Program has uploaded
over 34,000 samples into the National DNA Database, which has resulted
in over 600 hits. The volume of sample submissions to the FCO Program
has increased dramatically since 2001.
While much of the DNA analysis process has been automated, a
bottleneck continues to exist at the DNA data review stage, which is
currently conducted manually. To alleviate this bottleneck, the FBI is
evaluating data analysis software packages or expert systems to
automate this part of the process. Once implemented, the resulting
system would be able to assess 85 percent to 90 percent of the
convicted offender data without manual intervention, reducing data
analysis time from approximately 60 minutes (per 80 samples) to less
than 15 minutes (a four-fold increase in efficiency).
questions submitted by senator leahy pursuant to the december 6, 2006,
senate judiciary committee hearing regarding fbi oversight
The FBI's responses to the Questions for the Record (QFRs) posed by
Senator Leahy to Director Mueller following the December 6, 2006,
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and resubmitted following this
hearing, were provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by letter
dated June 14, 2007, along with the rest of the QFRs posed to the FBI
following that hearing. Please refer to the record for the responses to
those questions.
Iraq Study Group Recommendations
1. In its recent report about the situation in Iraq, the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group found that the Iraqi Police Service (``IPS'') is in
dire straits. In particular, the report states (on pages 9-10):
The state of the Iraqi police is substantially worse than that of
the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Police Service currently numbers roughly
135,000 and is responsible for local policing. It has neither the
training nor legal authority to conduct criminal investigations, nor
the firepower to take on organized crime, insurgents, or militias . . .
Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in
sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and
targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians. . . . There are ample
reports of Iraqi police officers participating in training in order to
obtain a weapon, uniform, and ammunition for use in sectarian violence.
Some are on the payroll but don't show up for work. In the words of a
senior American general, ``2006 was supposed to be `the year of the
police' '' but it hasn't materialized that way.
In recommendation #54 of the report, the Iraq Study Group advocates
having the Justice Department direct the training mission of the IPS
forces that remain within the Iraq Ministry of the Interior.
(a) Please state whether you agree with this recommendation and
explain your response.
(b) What role has the FBI had in the training of the Iraqi police,
thus far?
(c) What additional steps will the FBI take to train the IPS in
light of the Iraq Study Group's report and in particular, this
recommendation?
2. In recommendation #57, the Iraq Study Group recommends that the
practice of embedding U.S. police trainers with Iraqi police units be
expanded and that the number of civilian officers training Iraqi police
be increased.
(a) Please state whether you agree with this recommendation and
explain your response.
(b) Are there currently any FBI agents embedded with the Iraqi
Police Service? If so, how many?
(c) Will the FBI provide additional police trainers to participate
in the training of the Iraqi Police Service and, if so, how many?
3. In recommendation #58, the Iraq Study Group further recommends
that the FBI expand its investigative and forensic training and
facilities in Iraq, to address both terrorism and criminal activity.
(a) Please state whether you agree with this recommendation and
explain your response.
(b) How many FBI agents and personnel are currently providing
investigative and forensic training in Iraq?
(c) How many FBI agents and personnel are currently assisting with
counterterrorism activities in Iraq?
(d) Will the FBI expand its role in these programs as the Iraq
Study Group recommends and, if so, what additional resources, including
staff, equipment and funding, will be dedicated to that effort?
4. Public corruption is a significant problem in Iraq. According to
the Iraq Study Group's report, one senior Iraqi official estimated that
official corruption cost the Iraqi Government between $5 and $7 billion
per year. To address the rampant corruption in Iraq, the Iraq Study
Group concludes that Justice Department programs to create institutions
and practices to fight public corruption in Iraq ``must be strongly
supported and funded.''
(a) What resources, including staff, equipment and funding, does
the FBI currently have dedicated to helping to fight public corruption
in Iraq?
(b) Will the FBI increase the resources that it currently has in
Iraq to further assist the Iraqi government in fighting public
corruption?
Datamining/ATS and IDW
5. At the hearing, I asked you about the Department of Homeland
Security's Automated Targeting System (``ATS'') and recent revelations
that, since 9/11, the Bush Administration has been using this program
to secretly assign terror scores to millions of law-abiding Americans
who travel across our borders. You were not prepared to answer my
questions about ATS at the hearing; however, you stated that you would
look into this matter. Please respond to the following questions:
(a) During an unclassified briefing for Judiciary Committee staff,
the Department of Homeland Security said that it shares the sensitive
personal information in the ATS database with the FBI and checks the
information in this database against the Terrorist Watchlist. Does the
FBI receive the terror scores or assessments and the other information
contained in the ATS database? Please describe the information that the
FBI receives from ATS and explain how the Bureau uses this information.
(b) Does the FBI use the information that it receives from ATS to
assist it in investigating traditional criminal cases as well as
counterterrorism matters?
(c) What safeguards are in place at the FBI to ensure the accuracy
of this information and to protect the privacy interests of the
millions of law-abiding Americans whose sensitive personal data is
contained in ATS?
6. You also testified that you would check into whether the FBI's
own Investigative Data Warehouse database (``IDW'')--which now contains
more than 560 million FBI and other agency documents--shares
information or data with ATS. Does the IDW database share information
or otherwise interface with the ATS data-mining program?
7. You further testified that the FBI has issued a privacy impact
statement for IDW.
(a) Has the Bureau publicly released this privacy impact statement
for IDW and, if not when will the FBI do so?
(b) Has the FBI filed a notice in the Federal Register regarding
the IDW program? If not, why not, and when will the Bureau do so?
8. What policies are in place to ensure the accuracy and security
of the sensitive personal data contained in the IDW database?
Detainee Treatment
9. Last year's Detainee Treatment Act and this year's Military
Commissions Act both set standards for what types of interrogation
techniques are and are not permissible. In each case, though, the
standards are general and open to interpretation.
(a) Did the Office of Legal Counsel or any other legal office at
the Justice Department or the FBI provide guidance to the FBI regarding
how to interpret the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act governing
what interrogation practices are permissible?
(b) What form did this guidance take? Did it dictate what specific
interrogation techniques can and cannot be used?
(c) What was the substance of this legal guidance? Will you share
this document with the Committee?
10. Has the Office of Legal Counsel or any other legal office at
the Justice Department or the FBI provided guidance to the FBI
regarding how to interpret the provisions of the newly passed Military
Commissions Act governing what interrogation practices are permissible?
(a) If so, what is that guidance? Please provide a copy of any
legal guidance provided to the FBI regarding the Military Commissions
Act.
(b) If not, please explain how your agents know what is permitted
or prohibited by the broad language of the Military Commissions Act
without legal guidance. Do you expect to receive legal guidance in the
future?
11. An FBI Supervisory Special Agent at Guantanamo Bay wrote a memo
in November 2002 entitled ``Legal Analysis of Interrogation
Techniques,'' in which he or she concluded that rendering terrorism
suspects to ``Jordan, Egypt, or another third country to allow those
countries to employ interrogation techniques that will enable them to
obtain the requisite information'' would violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340
(the torture statute). Specifically, the memo states:
In as much as the intent of this category is to utilize, outside
the United States, interrogation techniques which would violate 18
U.S.C. Sec. 2340 if committed in the United States, it is a per se
violation of the U.S. Torture Statute. Discussing any plan which
includes this category, could be seen as a conspiracy to violate 18
U.S.C. Sec. 2340. Any person who takes any action in furtherance of
implementing such a plan, would inculpate all persons who were involved
in creating this plan. This technique cannot be utilized without
violating U.S. Federal law.
Legal Analysis of Interrogation Techniques (available online at
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/pdf/fbi-brief-inter-
analysis-112702.pdf).
(a) Do you agree that the ``technique'' of rendering suspects to
third countries in order to allow those countries to use coercive
interrogation techniques that violate U.S. law ``cannot be utilized
without violating U.S. Federal law''?
(b) Does the legal analysis contained in the November 2002 memo
reflect the FBI's current thinking with respect to rendition and other
interrogation techniques? If not, how does the FBI's current analysis
differ from the analysis in the memo?
12. You testified that the FBI is not investigating any of the
allegations that have been made by German national Khalid El-Masri and
others regarding possible violations of U.S. law in connection with the
rendering of individuals to foreign countries. Why isn't the FBI
investigating these allegations?
Brandon Mayfield
13. In December, the government agreed to pay $2 million to settle
a case that had been brought by Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield. Mr.
Mayfield was jailed for two weeks in 2004 as a material witness, in
connection with the Madrid train bombing. As part of the settlement,
the government made a formal apology to Mr. Mayfield and his family for
the suffering caused by his mistaken arrest. Mr. Mayfield was arrested
and held for two weeks on a material witness warrant. Under the
material witness law, the government is authorized to arrest a witness
to secure his testimony in a criminal proceeding. After the 9/11
attacks, the Justice Department began using the material witness law
not to secure testimony from possible witnesses, but rather to lock up
possible suspects in counter-terrorism investigations without charge
until there is enough evidence to indict. Is it accurate to say that
this is what happened in the Mayfield case?
14. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in 2003 [in the
Awadallah case] that the purpose of the material witness law is to
secure testimony where it may become impracticable to secure the
presence of the witness by subpoena. The Court added: ``It would be
improper for the government to use [the material witness law] for other
ends, such as the detention of persons suspected of criminal activity
for which probable cause has not yet been established.'' Do you agree
that it is improper for the government to use the material witness law
for purposes other than securing testimony?
15. The government noted as part of the settlement with Mr.
Mayfield that the FBI had taken steps ``to ensure that what happened to
Mr. Mayfield and the Mayfield family does not happen again.'' What
steps has the FBI taken? Do they include any new guidance respecting
the use of the material witness statute?
Sentinel
16. You testified that there will be no cost overruns or budget
shortfalls for the Sentinel program. However, in December 2006, the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (``OIG'') released a
report that found that the FBI will need an additional $56.7 million
over what the President requested in his budget for next year to
continue the Sentinel project, and that these additional costs could
have an adverse impact on the FBI's counterterrorism and other
programs. The OIG's report also calls the FBI's cost estimate for the
Sentinel program into serious question.
(a) Does the FBI need additional funds to pay for Phase II of
Sentinel and if so, how much additional funding is needed?
(b) You testified that the FBI has set aside $57 million to make up
the difference between the President's $100 million budget request for
Sentinel and the anticipated program costs for Phase II. What FBI
programs will be cut back or eliminated in order to use these funds to
pay for Sentinel?
(c) Will you promptly inform Congress of Sentinel's operational
impact on other FBI programs if reprogramming of funds is necessary to
pay for Sentinel?
17. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office
(``GAO'') found that the FBI paid about $10.1 million in unallowable
costs to contractors during the Trilogy program. You have said that the
FBI would pursue these funds upon completion of a closeout audit of the
Trilogy program by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. When will the FBI
start to recover these taxpayer funds?
18. Another concern raised by the GAO is the FBI's over-reliance on
government contractors to complete Sentinel. According to the GAO, 77
percent of the positions for Sentinel will be filled by contractors
rather than by government personnel. Given the FBI's past experiences
with contractors on the Trilogy program, is the Bureau overly relying
on contractors for Sentinel?
Arabic-speaking Agents and Translators
19. Despite progress on hiring Arabic translators, the FBI lags far
behind when it comes to the number of agents who are proficient in
Arabic. Recently, The Washington Post reported that only 33 FBI agents
have at least a limited proficiency in Arabic and only 1 percent of FBI
agents have any familiarity with the language.
(a) How can the FBI effectively fight the war on terror when most
of its agents lack even a basic proficiency in the Arabic language?
(b) How has the lack of Arabic speaking agents impacted the
Bureau's ability to develop relationships with Arabic-speaking and
Muslim communities within the United States?
(c) How has the lack of Arabic speaking agents impacted the
Bureau's ability to gather critical counterterrorism intelligence?
20. You previously testified that the FBI can translate high-
priority counterintelligence material within 24 hours. Is this still
the case, and what are the realistic prospects for this type of
material to be translated in something approximating real time?
Afghanistan Opium Trade
21. Earlier this year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(``UNODC'') reported that there has been a surge in opium cultivation
in Afghanistan that is fueling the insurgency in that country.
According to the report, opium production in Afghanistan has increased
59 percent over last year and in the southern region where Taliban
insurgents have intensified their attacks on Afghan government and U.S.
forces, opium cultivation has increased by 162 percent. Given that the
Bush Administration routinely describes the international narcotics
trade as a national security issue, and that the production of opium
has skyrocketed since the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the
Taliban, what does this mean for our national security at home and for
the safety of our troops in Afghanistan?
Terrorist Watchlist
22. You recently disclosed that the Terrorism Screening Database
(``TSDB'') contains 491,000 records and that the FBI's review of the
database to ensure the accuracy of these records will take years. The
glaring errors in the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist--including the names of
Members of Congress, infants and even nuns--clearly make the case for
why this review is needed. These errors also suggest that any review of
the TSDB must also include finding out how the bad information that is
in this database got there in the first place.
(a) What is the FBI doing to find out how bad data got into the
TSDB and onto the terrorist watchlist?
(b) Is there any procedure in place that requires the FBI to
conduct an internal investigation whenever errors are detected in the
TSDB? Should there be?
Cyber Security
23. During the hearing, you testified that cyber crime is one of
the FBI's top three priorities on the national security side. In late
November, there were unconfirmed reports of a threatened attack on U.S.
stock market and the Banking industry websites by a radical Muslim
group. According to press reports, the attack would be in retaliation
for the detention of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
(a) What steps did the FBI take to respond to this threat?
(b) What resources does the FBI currently have dedicated to U.S.
cyber security?
Public Corruption
24. In your testimony at the hearing, you called public corruption
the FBI's top criminal investigative priority and you asserted that
there has been an increase in the number of agents investigating public
corruption cases and the number of cases investigated. However, a
September 2005 report by the Department of Justice Office of the
Inspector General found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall
reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. The report
also found declines in resources dedicated to investigating public
corruption, in corruption cases initiated, and in cases forwarded to
U.S. Attorney's Offices. It further found that some field offices were
not giving public corruption sufficient emphasis and had scaled back
their anti-corruption efforts.
(a) What have you done since the Inspector General's report came
out to ensure that combating corruption gets the resources and
attention it needs?
(b) Would the FBI benefit from additional resources to combat
public corruption? If so, what types of resources would be the most
helpful?
25. In your written testimony, you cited the Phoenix Division's
Lively Green investigation as an example of the FBI's commitment to,
and success in, investigating public corruption. The Arizona Republic
reported earlier this year that FBI agents working on the Lively Green
investigation paid for a room for informants to stay in a presidential
suite at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. According to a disclosure
made by prosecutors, the informants and suspects staying in the room
hired prostitutes and sexually abused an unconscious prostitute. Soon
after, FBI personnel recorded conversations which included detailed
descriptions of the incident, and agents reviewed lewd photographs from
the incident. FBI personnel failed to report the incident to
prosecutors, who learned of it only many months later from an
informant, and one agent was found to have made statements apparently
suggesting that the informants get rid of the incriminating
photographs. Although the Lively Green prosecutions went forward
successfully, these cases were placed in jeopardy by this conduct.
(a) What is the FBI doing to ensure that the problems that plagued
the Lively Green investigation and other past investigations--agents
covering for their informants' misconduct--do not happen again?
(b) Are you satisfied with the steps that the FBI took to
investigate and respond to the misconduct in the course of this
operation?
FBI Computer System Failure
26. According to several press reports, the FBI's National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, which is used to screen gun buyers,
crashed several times in November 2006--potentially allowing gun buyers
to purchase firearms without being properly screened. According to the
FBI, this background check system receives between 30,000 and 50,000
background check request each day, so this is not an insignificant
matter. I have three questions:
(a) Has the FBI determined what caused the system to crash, and has
this problem been fixed?
(b) Does the FBI know how many gun sales were completed without
background checks while the system was down?
(c) What is the FBI doing to make sure that this problem never
happens again?
Mike German/Whistleblowers
27. According to the Office of the Special Counsel (``OSC''), the
average number of whistleblowers who have filed complaints with the
government has increased by 43 percent since September 11, 2001. Yet,
sadly, the number of whistleblowers who have filed reprisal complaints
with the OSC because their employers have retaliated against them for
coming forward has also increased by 21 percent during the same time
period. For example, former FBI special agent Michael German has said
that his reputation and career were ruined after he reported concerns
about misconduct on the Bureau's terrorism investigations to his
superiors. What is the Bureau doing to protect the rights of
whistleblowers within the FBI to come forward and disclose government
fraud, waste and abuse?
28. Many whistleblowers in the intelligence community are
discouraged from coming forward because intelligence agencies are
exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act. Would you support
legislation to extend whistleblower protections to national security
employees?
Anthrax Investigation
29. The Bureau's investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks that
killed 5, infected 17 others and terrified millions of Americans is now
well into its fifth year. Many believe that the investigation has gone
very cold and no arrests have been made in the case.
(a) What is the current status of the anthrax investigation?
(b) Do you expect that criminal charges will be brought in the case
and if so, when?
(c) You testified at the hearing that the FBI currently has 17
agents and 10 postal inspectors assigned to the anthrax investigation.
Has the number of personnel dedicated to the investigation changed?
Will you consider increasing the number of agents and investigators
dedicated to this investigation?
(d) How much money has the FBI spent on the anthrax investigation
to date?
30. A frequent criticism of the anthrax investigation is that the
FBI has made a number of incorrect assumptions about the source of the
anthrax and refused to heed outside expert advice in the case. Will the
Bureau be open to new theories about the case and more receptive to
outside expertise and criticism going forward?
31. You testified that the FBI has ``periodically'' provided
briefings for the family members of the anthrax attacks. When was the
Bureau's last briefing to victims and their family members? How often
does the FBI provide these briefings?
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
32. A recent investigation by USA Today uncovered nearly three
dozen cases during the past five years in which investigators failed to
pursue potential suspects whose DNA matched evidence found at crime
scenes. (``Many DNA Matches Aren't Acted On, Nov. 21, 2006). According
to USA Today:
The unpursued matches had this in common: All were recorded as
``hits'' by the CODIS system and added to the list of CODIS-aided
investigations that the FBI makes public. Through September, the FBI
counted 39,291 such matches since 1990. No one is certain how many of
those matches resulted in arrests or convictions, however. In part
that's because no law or regulation requires crime labs, the FBI or
local law enforcement to follow through and determine what becomes of
DNA matches after the CODIS system reports them to the police. Crime
lab officials believe hundreds more matches have not been pursued by
authorities. They say those matches might become evident only after a
perpetrator is caught for a second time.
(a) Does the FBI keep any data on how many CODIS matches are
pursued by investigators?
(b) Does the FBI keep any data on how many CODIS matches have
helped solve crimes?
33. The leader of the FBI's CODIS unit told USA Today that tracking
the results of DNA matches would present a ``significant task'' that
the FBI is not geared to undertake, and that accounting for CODIS
matches should be the responsibility of local police and prosecutors
who are given match information. Do you agree?
34. Do you have any recommendations for improving accountability in
this area? How can the federal government get an accurate measure of
CODIS's real world value in solving crimes?
Corporate Fraud
35. You testified during the hearing that white-collar criminal
cases were one of the FBI's top three priorities on the criminal side.
Recently, Deputy Attorney General McNulty issued new guidelines for
corporate fraud investigations to address growing concern about the
Department of Justice's investigation and prosecution of corporate
fraud cases and, in particular, criticisms of the Department's policy--
embodied until recently in the so called ``Thompson Memorandum''--to
request that corporate defendants produce attorney-client privileged
and/or work product information in these investigations.
(a) Does the FBI request or demand that corporate defendants turn
over attorney-client privileged or work product information in its
corporate fraud investigations? If so, would you describe such requests
as routine in white collar fraud cases?
(b) What will the FBI do to ensure that agents investigating
corporate fraud cases conform their conduct to fit the standards set
out in the new McNulty Memorandum?
Gardner-quinn Murder Investigation
36. During the hearing, you testified that the FBI agent who
published details of the Gardner-Quinn murder investigation in a
Vermont newspaper is under investigation. What is the status of this
investigation and has the agent involved been disciplined by the FBI?
questions submitted by senator leahy pursuant to the march 27, 2007,
senate judiciary committee hearing regarding fbi oversight
The FBI's responses to the below QFRs posed by Senator Leahy to
Director Mueller following the 3/27/07 Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing were to be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee with the
rest of the QFRs posed to the FBI following that hearing. Because we
are not providing those responses here, we have ``grayed out'' these
particular QFRs.
National Security Letters
1. Despite the recent report by the Department of Justice Inspector
General finding illegal and improper use of National Security Letters
and so-called ``exigent letters,'' I understand that the FBI may still
be using exigent letters. Is the FBI still using exigent letters and if
so, why have you not stopped this practice?
2. The Attorney General's guidelines require that the FBI use the
least intrusive investigative tools to obtain the information that it
needs. During the recent hearing that the Committee held on NSLs,
Inspector General Glenn Fine testified that the least intrusive NSL are
the ones seeking telephone records and that NSLs for financial records
and for credit reports are more intrusive of Americans' privacy. During
the hearing, you testified that you believed that NSLs seeking credit
reports could be intrusive, but less so than those seeking telephone
toll records. Does the FBI have a policy in place requiring that agents
first use the least intrusive types of NSLs--such as NSLs seeking
telephone toll records--when conducting investigations? If not, will
you adopt such a policy to better safeguard Americans' privacy?
3. I am also concerned about the kind of information that the FBI
is seeking in its National Security Letters.
(a) Is it true that most of the FBI's NSLs seeking telephone or
Internet records under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(``ECPA'') seek only subscriber identifying information? What
percentage of these NSLs seek other transactional information, such as
toll records or billing records?
(b) With regard to NSLs that seek bank or other financial records
under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and the National Security Act, what percentage of these NSLs seek
detailed financial transaction information, such as bank account
records and/or full credit reports?
4. During the hearing, you testified that the information that the
FBI improperly obtained through unlawful NSLs has been placed into the
FBI's database. What steps have you taken to track all of this
improperly obtained information, and have you removed it from all of
the FBI's files and databases?
5. Has any of the information improperly obtained through unlawful
NSLs been used in any criminal cases or investigations and, if so, have
you notified appropriate authorities at the Justice Department in order
to make sure none of this information has been improperly used in our
justice system?
6. Do you believe that the FBI's failure to follow the law in
obtaining NSLs may be exculpatory, or Giglio information, that needs to
be disclosed if the information is used in court?
7. The Judiciary Committee has received letters and briefings from
FBI and Justice Department officials in the past, assuring us that NSLs
were being used properly, and that all appropriate safeguards and legal
authorities were being followed. For example, in a November 2005 letter
to this Committee (attached), the Justice Department asserted
emphatically that the FBI was not abusing the process for seeking NSLs,
and that all NSL activity was accurately being reported to Congress as
required by law. In light of the Inspector General's report, will you
review those letters and briefings to see if anyone at the FBI or the
Justice Department has misled this Committee about NSLs?
8. According to the Inspector General's report, one of the major
reasons that the FBI failed to report thousands of NSLs to Congress was
because of a malfunction in a FBI's computer database. Apparently, this
breakdown occurred in 2004, causing the loss of information about more
than 8,000 NSL requests. What was the cause of this malfunction, and
have you corrected it? Why did you fail to report this problem to
Congress?
9. You testified during the hearing that the FBI has revised its
internal policy on NSLs and adopted the recommendations contained in
the Inspector General's report. But, in 60 percent of the NSLs that the
Inspector General reviewed, he found widespread failure on the part of
the FBI to comply with its own internal control policies. Given this
track record, how can you assure Congress that the new policies that
you are implementing will prevent future abuses of NSLs, when the
Bureau clearly failed to follow its own policies in the past?
10. During the hearing, you testified that ``[t]he relevant
standard established by the PATRIOT Act for the issuance of National
Security Letters is unrelated to the problems identified by the
Inspector General.'' Yet, given the broad scope of the abuses uncovered
by the Inspector General's report, it appears that there is a need for
additional checks and balances on the authority to issue NSLs. Do you
believe that an independent check on the NSL process, such as approval
of NSLs by a judge, a Justice Department attorney, or an outside review
panel, would improve the NSL approval process and prevent future
abuses?
Library Records
11. I appreciate your March 30, 2007, letter responding to my
question about how often the FBI has used NSLs to obtain records from
libraries and educational institutions. In your letter, you state that
the FBI's Office of General Counsel has maintained an informal list of
the number of NSLs served on educational institutions or libraries;
however, you also state that this list may not be complete or accurate.
Given the importance of this issue to Americans' privacy and civil
liberties, will the FBI agree to formally track the number of NSLs
issued to libraries and educational institutions and periodically
report this figure to Congress?
12. During the hearing, you cited the Inspector General's Report on
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which found that the FBI rarely used
this authority to obtain library records. However, I am concerned that
the FBI is using other provisions in the PATRIOT Act to obtain this
information, thereby circumventing the safeguards and reporting
requirements of Section 215. For example in 2005, the FBI issued NSLs
to four Connecticut libraries asking them to surrender ``all subscriber
information, billing information and access logs of any person''
related to a specific library computer during a specific time period,
pursuant to Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. These NSLs also prohibited
the librarians from disclosing the fact that they had received the NSLs
or their contents--the so-called ``gag order'' under the PATRIOT Act.
(a) Please describe the circumstances surrounding the FBI's
decision to issue these National Security Letters.
(b) Please identify all of the PATRIOT Act provisions that the FBI
has used to obtain library records from libraries and educational
institutions?
(c) Is the FBI circumventing the requirements of Section 215 by
relying on other provisions in the PATRIOT Act to obtain this
information?
Arar/Watchlist
13. I have asked before about Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who
when returning home from a vacation in 2002, was detained by federal
agents at JFK Airport in New York City on suspicion of ties to
terrorism, and was sent to Syria, where he was held for 10 months.
After I pressed the Attorney General about the Arar case at a hearing
in January, Senator Specter and I were finally granted a classified
briefing. After that briefing, we wrote to request a Justice Department
investigation into the matter and have learned that the Department's
Office of Professional Responsibility is looking into the Department's
legal decisions.
(a) Is the FBI taking any steps to evaluate whether your agents and
officials acted properly in the Arar matter, particularly with regard
to the original decision to send him to Syria, rather than to Canada?
(b) Given that a past OPR investigation of a politically sensitive
matter, specifically the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, appears
to have been blocked, will you commit to cooperate with OPR's
investigation of the Arar case?
(c) What steps has the FBI taken to ensure that you do not
participate in sending other people in the future to places where they
will be tortured?
14. Despite having been cleared of all terrorism allegations by
Canada, Mr. Arar remains on a United States terror watch list. In fact,
The Washington Post reported on Sunday that our watch lists keep
growing, with the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment
(``TIDE'')--the master list from which other lists, like the No Fly
list, are taken--now numbering about 435,000 people.
(a) Doesn't such a large and constantly growing list actually make
it harder for the FBI and others to use the information? Wouldn't the
FBI and other agencies be able to do much more to protect us with a
more controlled list, focused on serious and proven threats?
(b) The Washington Post article also noted the difficulty that
people on the list, or with names similar to people on the list, have
in getting off of government lists--which restrict their travel and
their lives. The Government Accountability Office issued a report last
year setting out some of the failures throughout the government in
allowing individuals effective redress if they are wrongly placed on
these lists. In light of the Arar situation, Senator Specter and I
asked the Government Accountability Office to update their review. What
steps has the FBI taken to allow individuals who may be wrongly on
watch lists to challenge and correct those designations?
Sentinel
15. Now a year into the Bureau's Sentinel computer upgrade program,
I remain concerned about the prospect of this program and its
ballooning costs to American taxpayers. Earlier this month, the FBI
informed the Committee that it had encountered unexpected problems with
the deployment of Phase I of the Sentinel program that would delay the
program. Even more troubling, the FBI could not tell Committee staff
how long it would take to remedy these problems, or how the delay would
impact the overall schedule for Sentinel. What is the current status of
the Sentinel program and do you anticipate that there will be
additional delays in deploying the program or costs overruns? What
impact have the delays with Sentinel--and Trilogy before it--had on the
Bureau's ability to fulfill its core mission?
Civil Rights Cold Cases
16. In February 2006, the FBI established a nationwide initiative
to re-examine civil rights era cold cases. At a press conference on
February 27th, the FBI released a press statement announcing that
although 100 cold cases have been referred to the Bureau, the FBI has
prioritized only a dozen. I applaud the effort to reexamine these
cases, but why has the FBI only prioritized a mere handful of civil
rights era cold cases? How many agents, analysts, and other resources
has the FBI committed towards this important effort?
17. Earlier this year, I joined Senator Dodd in re-introducing the
Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. This bill creates
permanent unsolved civil rights crimes units within the FBI and the
Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to investigate and
prosecute these crimes. This bill will also give law enforcement the
resources to ensure that justice is served. As a former prosecutor, I
strongly believe law enforcement should have the necessary tools to
aggressively seek those who have committed these crimes, regardless of
the time that has passed. Would you support the Emmett Till bill? Do
you believe this bill gives the FBI the resources needed to thoroughly
investigate unsolved civil rights murders?
Lost Laptops/Data Security
18. In February, the Inspector General for the Department of
Justice released another troubling report finding that the FBI lost 160
laptop computers--including at least ten computers that contained
classified information and one that contained sensitive personal
information about FBI personnel--during a 44-month period. Even more
troubling, the report also found that the FBI could not even account
for whether 51 other computers, including seven computers that were
assigned to the Bureau's counterintelligence and counterterrorism
divisions, might contain classified or sensitive data. What is the
Bureau doing to address its problem of lost laptops and lax data
security?
19. Earlier this year, Senator Specter and I reintroduced our
Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, which would, among other
things, require federal agencies to give notice to the individuals
whose data is lost or stolen, when a data breach occurs. Did the FBI
notify the individuals whose sensitive personal information was lost in
the case of the missing laptops? Would you support this legislation?
20. After the VA lost a laptop containing sensitive personal
information about millions of veterans and active duty personnel,
Secretary Nicholson instituted a new policy requiring that all of the
VA's computers contain encryption technology to prevent the
unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information. Will you make a
similar pledge to use encryption technology for all of the Bureau's
computers?
DNA Sampling
21. Pursuant to a little noticed provision in the Violence Against
Women Act reauthorization bill, the Department of Justice is currently
developing new guidelines that would greatly expand the Government's
ability to collect DNA samples--which reveal the most sensitive genetic
information about an individual--from most individuals who are arrested
or detained by federal authorities and to store this sensitive
biological information in a federal data base known as the National DNA
Index System. This new policy will allow the Federal Government to
collect DNA samples from hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants
who may be detained by federal authorities and from individuals who may
be arrested--in essence, making DNA collection as common as
fingerprinting. What privacy protections are in place under the
Department's new guidelines to ensure that sensitive DNA data contained
in the National DNA Index System will not be misused or improperly
disclosed by the FBI or other federal and state agencies?
22. I am also concerned about this new policy because the new DNA
evidence collected by the Government will add to the already notorious
backlog at the Bureau's laboratory. According to press reports, the FBI
acknowledges that this new policy will result in an increase of as many
as 1 million additional DNA samples a year. Is the Bureau's laboratory
equipped to handle this additional workload? What steps are you taking
to make sure that the FBI's laboratory can keep up with the demand for
DNA samples?
Improper Reporting of Terrorism Statistics
23. The Department of Justice Inspector General found in another
recent report that the FBI failed to accurately report eight of the ten
terrorism statistics that it reviewed for this report--that is an 80
percent failure rate. Among other things, the FBI overstated the number
of terrorism-related convictions for 2004, because it included cases
where no terrorism link was actually found. This is no simple matter--
the Congress relies upon these statistics to conduct oversight and to
make funding and operational decisions regarding the Bureau. What steps
have you taken to address the problems with reporting of terrorism
statistics at the FBI?
Staffing
24. I also remain concerned about staffing at the Bureau. In
January, your Deputy, John Pistole, told the Senate Intelligence
Committee that the FBI expects to lose 400 agents and 400 intelligence
analysts this year, due to retirement or attrition. Mr. Pistole also
stated that approximately 20 percent (370) of the FBI's intelligence
analysts have less than a year of experience with the Bureau. I cannot
help but worry that the Bureau will not have the staffing and expertise
that it needs to carry out its counterterrorism and counterintelligence
mission, given these figures on staffing. What are you doing to address
the shortage in intelligence analysts and agents? How many agents and
analysts do you expect to hire by the end of 2007?
FOIA
25. I was disappointed to learn that the FBI has not met several of
its goals to improve FOIA processing under the President's Executive
Order 13392, including the important goal to complete all FOIA requests
that are more than two years old by August 2006. What is the current
status of the FBI's FOIA backlog?
MI5
26. After the horrific attacks of September 11th, I worked very
hard with others in Congress to give the FBI the tools that it needed
to combat terrorism and carry out its domestic intelligence functions.
Given what we have learned about the widespread misuse of National
Security Letters and chronic staffing problems in the Bureau's
counterterrorism and counterintelligence offices, some are calling for
the Congress to put the Bureau's domestic intelligence operations in a
new MI5-styled domestic intelligence agency. Do you believe that
Congress should create a domestic intelligence agency to carry out the
Nation's domestic counterterrorism activities?
political landscape ``informational briefings'' by white house for
senior government officials
Question. A number of recent reports, including Tuesday's (April
24, 2007) Los Angeles Times and today's Washington Post, suggest that
White House staff, including Ken Mehlman, Scott Jennings and perhaps
others, have provided what a White House spokesman calls
``informational briefings to appointees throughout the federal
government about the political landscape.''
Have appointees or employees at the United States Department of
Justice received such ``informational briefings''?
Answer. The Department queried components to determine whether any
political appointees attended or were aware of any employees within the
components attended a briefing with White House officials described in
the inquiry. The Department's Office of Information and Privacy and the
Executive Secretariat also conducted searches of the electronic and
paper files.
The Department's information indicates that employees attended
briefings at the White House's Eisenhower Executive Office Building and
in one instance, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
Department's records do not indicate whether all of the meetings
actually included a political briefing regarding elections or
candidates.
Question. Have appointees or employees at the United States
Department of Justice received briefings from White House staff that
reviewed polling data?
Answer. The Department's search efforts did not reveal information
indicating that briefings of the type described in the inquiry were
held at the Department of Justice. The Department's information
indicates that DOJ employees attended briefings at the White House's
Eisenhower Executive Office Building and in one instance, at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The Department's records do not indicate
whether all of the meetings actually included a political briefing
regarding elections or candidates.
Question. Have appointees or employees at the United States
Department of Justice received briefings that mentioned congressional
election or reelection campaigns?
Answer. The Department's information indicates that DOJ employees
attended briefings at the White House's Eisenhower Executive Office
Building and in one instance, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Department's records do not indicate whether all of the meetings
included a political briefing regarding elections or candidates.
Question. According to a front page story in today's Washington
Post, before the last midterm election, White House staff conducted 20
such briefings in at least 15 government agencies on the electoral
prospects of Republican and Democratic candidates. If any such
briefings have occurred at the Department of Justice, please provide me
with the specifics on when they occurred, who attended, what was shared
and said, and all documents reflecting such matters in the custody,
possession or control of the Department.
Answer. The Department's search efforts did not reveal information
indicating that briefings of the type described in the inquiry were
held at the Department of Justice. The Department's information
indicates that DOJ employees attended briefings at the White House's
Eisenhower Executive Office Building and in one instance, at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The Department's records do not indicate
whether all of the meetings included a political briefing regarding
elections or candidates.
______
Questions Submitted By Senator Pete V. Domenici
indian country methamphetamine problems
Question. As you know, methamphetamine is a growing problem around
the country, second only to alcohol and marijuana as the drug used most
frequently in many Western and Midwestern states. Meth has become an
epidemic because of its low cost and ready availability. Law
enforcement officers continue to raid record numbers of clandestine
labs. Despite these efforts, meth use in communities continues to
increase. These labs present a clear and present danger to the citizens
of my state and to people across the country.
Congress has passed the Combat Meth Act to provide valuable new
resources and tools to states, local law enforcement and prosecutors to
combat the production and distribution of meth while at the same time
educating our communities about meth. The DEA is requesting $29.2
million for its Southwest Border and Methamphetamine Enforcement
Initiative.
I'm told by experts in my home state of New Mexico that many of our
meth problems are the result of the drug being brought into the United
States from Mexico. I have also been told that the decrease in illegal
importation of Meth is directly correlated to the increase in
clandestine labs. I am very concerned about meth production and use on
the Native American lands in New Mexico. Knowing the FBI's jurisdiction
in Indian Country, has the FBI seen an increase in violent crimes and
felonies on the Navajo Nation and in the four-corners area of New
Mexico that are meth related?
Answer. The FBI has noted increases in the use of methamphetamine
and in methamphetamine-related violence in this area over the past four
years, and in some locations the increase in violence has included an
increase in the number of assaults on law enforcement officers by
methamphetamine traffickers and users. While the overall level of
violent crime in Indian Country (IC) has remained relatively constant
from 2004 to the present (based on the number of pending cases, cases
opened, arrests, indictments, informations, and convictions for murder,
assault, adult rape, and child physical abuse), the incidence of IC
violent crime remains high.
It is the FBI's understanding that research by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy indicates a reduction in the number of
methamphetamine laboratories in the United States, with much of the
methamphetamine used in the United States being manufactured in Mexico.
These drugs are often trafficked through IC for sale in the United
States. These findings are consistent with the FBI's analysis and
experience and, in an effort to address the surge in IC methamphetamine
trafficking, the FBI has continued to expand its STTF initiative.
Sixteen STTFs, comprised of Federal, tribal, state, and local law
enforcement officers, operate throughout the IC. The interagency
partnerships established in these task forces benefit IC law
enforcement by leveraging resources. On many Native American Indian
reservations, the STTFs provide the only effective narcotics
investigation capabilities. Initial data for fiscal year 2007, indicate
that STTFs obtained 69 indictments, arrested and/or located 96
subjects, obtained 86 convictions, and disrupted two drug trafficking
organizations.
Question. What other trends are you seeing on Tribal Lands relating
to felony criminal activity that is under the purview of the FBI's
jurisdiction?
Answer. FBI SAs assigned to IC continue to report high levels of
violent crime on Native American reservations throughout the United
States, including a marked increase in the number of IC child sexual
assault cases in fiscal year 2007 as compared with fiscal year 2005 and
2006. The number of child sexual assault cases opened in fiscal year
2007 outnumbered those for fiscal year 2006 by 7 percent.
In order to better equip Federal and tribal officials investigating
IC child sexual assault allegations, the FBI has developed a course
focused on forensic interviews of children in IC cases. This training
was offered regionally on three occasions in fiscal year 2007 and will
be offered again in fiscal year 2008. In addition, the FBI has worked
to create a state-of-the-art child advocacy center on the Crow
Reservation in Montana. This center, which opened on 4/24/07, provides
child-appropriate interviewing services to IC investigators on the Crow
and Northern Cheyenne Reservations. (This valuable resource has also
been used by state officials investigating the alleged sexual abuse of
non-Indian children.)
Compounding the problems associated with high violent crime rates
and drug trafficking in IC are increasing problems related to IC street
gang structures, many of which engage in drug trafficking to enhance
their gang influence. The majority of large Native American
reservations suffer from some level of gang influence, ranging from
``emerging'' to established street gang structures engaged in organized
criminal activity. In the past, Native American gangs engaged primarily
in property-based crimes such as graffiti and vandalism. IC law
enforcement officials are particularly concerned about the movement
toward more violent criminal acts, including sexual assaults, gang
rapes, home invasions, drive-by shootings, beatings, and elder abuse.
During a 2006 assessment of gang activity on the rural Crow Indian
Reservation in Montana, teenage gang members told FBI SAs of impending
drive-by shootings on that reservation and acknowledged ``jumping in''
(severely beating) and ``sexing in'' (requiring sexual activity from)
prospective female gang members.
The emergence of Native American gangs in IC has largely been
attributed to the strained Native American social environment and
pervasive media influences. Native American gangs often assume
characteristics of urban street gangs, using common signs, symbols,
names, slang, and attire. These gangs have been significantly
influenced by members who were previously incarcerated and involved in
prison gang cultures. As incarcerated individuals have been released
from prison to their reservation communities, they have enhanced their
influence by promoting their prison gang affiliations, fostering the
growth of criminal gang cultures in IC. In addition to prison gang
influences, IC law enforcement officials have noted the emergence of
female Native American gangs, members of which have escalated their
violent behavior in order to prove they are as violent and anti-social
as their male counterparts.
The FBI sponsors training for all levels of IC law enforcement,
including approximately 25 classes per year for 1,200 Federal, state,
local, and tribal law enforcement officials. This training addresses
Native American gangs, crime scene processing, child abuse
investigations, forensic interviewing of children, homicide
investigations, interviewing and interrogation, officer safety and
survival, crisis negotiation, and Indian Gaming.
internet crime
Question. The Albuquerque Journal reported this week that over the
past two years, internet crime in my home state of New Mexico has
increased by over 235 percent, while internet crime nationwide has
remained at the same levels. This news story went on to state that the
technology boom in rural America may be the cause of increased internet
criminal activity in New Mexico. Electronic criminal activity is a
serious issue that appears to be difficult to investigate and
prosecute.
Has the FBI made any inroads into cracking down on this type of
criminal activity?
Answer. The series of international searches, arrests, and
confessions accomplished in the past several years through Operation
Fast Link and Operation Site Down have enabled the FBI to make
significant progress in addressing IP Internet criminal activity. The
FBI is also focusing on the counterfeiting of business software and
hardware products, which has significant international impact. The FBI
will continue to work with industry, state and local law enforcement
authorities, and our foreign law enforcement partners to ensure that
our IP enforcement measures are as effective as possible and address
the problem at all levels.
Question. What is the FBI doing to assist local law enforcement
with investigations related to internet crime?
Answer. The FBI's approach to Internet crime includes more than 75
cyber task forces, which include state and local law enforcement and
leverage the FBI's ability to provide support and guidance in support
of their local investigations. These task forces supplement the FBI's
investigative efforts by supporting not only IP rights and Internet
crime investigations, but also computer intrusion and ``Innocent
Images'' investigations.
In addition, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), which is a
project jointly run by the FBI and the National White Collar Crime
Center, receives over 22,000 Internet crime complaints per month from
consumers and businesses. All complaints received by IC3 are accessible
to Federal, state, and local law enforcement to support active
investigations, trend analysis, and public outreach and awareness
efforts. During 2006, IC3 referred 86,279 complaints of crime to
Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies around the country
for further consideration. The vast majority of these cases involved
fraud and a financial loss on the part of the complainant.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Mikulski. So, this subcommittee stands in recess
until 10 a.m., Thursday, May 3, when we will take testimony
from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
letting me out of here so I can attend to the next function I
have to make.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., Thursday, April 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
May 3.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Shelby, and Alexander.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF NAOMI CHURCHILL EARP, CHAIR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, Science of the Appropriations Committee will
come to order. As we said in the beginning of the year, our
themes are innovation, security, and accountability.
This morning, this subcommittee will focus on an agency who
has one of probably the most important missions within the
Government in addition to security, which is the enforcement of
our laws against employment discrimination. This hearing will
be an oversight hearing as related to what is needed to be sure
the agency is able to fulfill its mission.
I would have never dreamed many years ago that I would be
able to be here as the appropriator for the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It would have been a dream well
beyond my wildest imagination. Over 40 years ago, I was a young
social worker who had heard the call of a gifted President
named Jack Kennedy asking not what you can do for your country
but what your country can do for you, and responded to that
call by fighting the war on poverty and being very active in my
own community in the area of civil rights.
Baltimore was a tough town. It had a northern economy but a
southern social structure. It was a segregated town and as part
of great leadership, the home of where the NAACP is
headquartered, the home that gave us Thurgood Marshall, the
Mitchell family, like Juanita and of course, Mr. Mitchell, the
101st Senator himself. We did marches and we sang, but we knew
that marches and singing didn't always open the doors. They
were to get the attention to open the doors.
So when this Government created the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, we thought it would be a one-stop shop
that people within this country could turn to redress any
grievance they had if doors were being slammed against them.
That's what the job of the EEOC Commission is, to make sure
that doors of employment are never ever slammed shut, that by
vigorously enforcing the discrimination laws on race, religion,
gender, and national origin, we would show that America
believed that we are truly all created equal.
But we are very concerned about what's happened over at the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the years. It
seems not to have been able to fulfill its mission and we are
concerned about three issues: management, morale, and money. Is
it the lack of resources that are creating the problem? But by
any index of objective analysis, it seems that the EEOC really
has problems and is in disarray.
We are very concerned about the fact that over years,
management has been inconsistent and imperial. Madam Chair, we
understand you've been on the job for 6 months, so we're
looking for recommendations and results and how that might be
tied to resources. If it's not resource-driven but leadership
driven, then I want to hear what your vision is because we're
very concerned about how we can fix it so that people can have
confidence in the process. We believe that we are a Nation of
law, that our law guarantees equal opportunity in employment
and that we have an agency that you can turn to if you feel
that you have discriminated against.
But we're concerned. Last year, EEOC received 76,000
complaints that needed to be investigated on top of a backlog--
the 34,000 backlog cases from the year before. Backlogs are an
obsession with us because where there is a backlog, there is
really a question of being able to enforce the laws. We're
concerned that backlogs are on the rise and that the issues are
not being addressed.
Despite rising complaints and increased backlogs, EEOC has
downsized its agency, contracted out to a customer service call
center, which had very few people and seemed to have very
little training. So we're going to want to ask about this call
center. When you call, do you get an answer? Or are you put on
hold and with the backlog, there's another hold you're put on?
What we want to be able to do today is focus on two things:
oversight and accountability and how that leads to advocacy. My
duty as an appropriator is to make sure that American taxpayer
dollars are used responsibly but at the same time, that
accomplishes mission and purpose. So we've been concerned and
I'll be blunt, Ms. Earp, we know you've had this job 6 months
so when you hear our frustration, it's not targeted at you
personally, so we want you to know that. We know that front
line staff has been cut. We know that work has been privatized
without really ensuring quality and oversight.
The district offices were reduced from 23 to 15 but what is
the rationale? We know that there has been a reduction in
attorneys. Was this about money? Was this about poor
management? And it's had a terrible effect on morale. The
agency has been reduced by 575. Has this been downsizing and
downgrading? Or it is right sizing? We need to know and we know
that there hasn't been a look at the agency in a number of
years and that's why we want to start this ball rolling.
As I said, we're advocates here, of civil rights. These men
represent the New South. They were generationally parallel. We
came out of a lot of turmoil and a lot of tumult but committed
in our lives and our public service to do that. Senator Shelby,
a champion on these issues. Senator Alexander, a Governor, a
Secretary of Education, now fighting also to make sure that
education is one of the key tools of an empowerment agenda and
the greatest equal opportunity is the right to an equal
education and to a good education.
So we're champions here of civil rights and this is why we
want this agency, under our stewardship, to be one of the best
in our portfolio. So we want to hear from you today on how to
do it. You know, we've been through restructuring plans. We
don't know what that meant. We saw that positions were reduced,
as I said, from 23 to 15. Was that a good idea? It seemed that
from what we heard from the civil rights community was that it
was not a good idea.
With the call center, we understand that it was contracted
out. They only get 7 days of training on civil rights law, that
you're not getting the calls that you expected and there seems
to be a tremendous lack of communication between the EEOC and
the call center.
Then, in my own State, there was the closing of a district
office, which was the hallmark of fairness in hearing
complaints for Federal employees. There are 117,000 Federal
employees in the State, and not because we're a big
bureaucracy. We're the home to the National Institutes of
Health--13,000 people. We're the home to the Census Bureau--
4,000 people. We are the home to so many other Federal
agencies--yes, as well as our defense, which has its own track.
So you see, what we want to do is we--we can talk about
downsizing and right sizing but what we want to talk about is
the right track. We are committed to the mission and goals that
were established for the EEOC. So we want to take a look at the
management issues, the morale issues and the money issues and
we look forward to hearing your recommendations because we are
results driven but know, just as there has been a backlog,
there is also a backlog of frustration.
But I'm going to be clear. It is not at you personally.
Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator, Chairman Mikulski,
Madam Chairman. We thank you for joining us here today to
discuss this. The chairman has already said the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission 2008 budget request.
The EEOC has an important mission as it provides assistance
to those who have faced discrimination in the workplace. This
is accomplished through investigations, mediation, legal action
and by providing education to businesses. The EEOC request for
2008 is $327.7 million, which is approximately a $1 million
decrease below the 2007 joint resolution funding level.
I know that Chairman Mikulski has serious concerns
regarding the EEOC's performance, particularly with the
Commission's direction and disregard for congressional
oversight. I agree with her and know that you are new to your
chairmanship and inherited many of the problems from your
predecessor. I believe this has had an immeasurable impact on
the EEOC's ability to carry out its mission.
It's come to my attention that the EEOC has decided to cut
a large amount of its allocation from the State and local
sector. I'm curious as to why this route has been taken because
the local offices, I believe, are vital to the mission of EEOC.
I have heard of the great accomplishments of the new Mobile
office in my State, especially given its large jurisdiction
covering the gulf coast regions of Mississippi, Alabama, and
the Florida Panhandle. I want to work with you to ensure that
the State and local offices get the support that they need to
do their job.
Based on my review of your request, combined with the
likely fiscal constraints of this subcommittee, we will need
your assistance, Madam Chairman, as we face tough funding
decisions regarding the allocation of resources in your budget.
This subcommittee and the Commission share the difficult task
of targeting these limited resources in a manner that
safeguards taxpayers' dollars while enabling the mission of
EEOC to be carried forward.
Madam Chairman, we look forward to your testimony and we
look forward to working with you during the 2008 budget process
to ensure that you have, as the chairman, have the necessary
resources to carry out the wide and varied missions of the
EEOC. I look forward to working with you and Chairman Mikulski
and Senator Alexander and others to make sure that you have the
requisite funding and we hope and I believe you will go in the
right direction. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much. Senator Alexander,
did you wish to make a comment?
Senator Alexander. No thank you, Madam Chairman. I have
some questions but I'll save them for later.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you. Ms. Earp, please proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF NAOMI EARP
Ms. Earp. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on
behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in
support of the President's 2008 budget request for $327.7
million.
As you've already indicated, I became the 13th Chair of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just this last fall. It
is a distinct pleasure to appear before you to discuss the
needs of EEOC for fiscal year 2008 as represented in the
President's budget. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for your
past support and thank the members of the subcommittee for its
support and your anticipated future support.
EEOC's vision is for a strong and prosperous Nation secure
through fair and inclusive workplaces. We strive to ensure
equality of opportunity in the workplace by enforcing the
Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. We seek to
maintain the Commission's reach by continuing proactive
measures to prevent discrimination while resolving claims and
strategically focusing our enforcement and litigation programs.
I've submitted for the record, a statement that highlights
aspects of our budget but I want to spend just a few minutes
touching on some of the points that are in the written
statement.
First of all, our budget request includes $160.3 million
for administrative charge processing. In fiscal year 2006, the
EEOC received almost 76,000 private sector charges. This was a
slight increase over 2005. We resolved just over 74,000 private
sector resolutions and recovered $229.8 million in monetary
benefits for victims of discrimination. We ended the fiscal
year with a charge inventory of almost 40,000 charges. We
acknowledge that our charge----
Senator Mikulski. Excuse me. Does charge inventory mean
backlog?
Ms. Earp. Essentially.
Senator Mikulski. Okay.
Ms. Earp. We acknowledge that the inventory is growing.
EEOC also has responsibility for hearings and appeals of
complaints filed by Federal employees. We received over 14,000
requests for hearings or appeals from Federal sector employees.
Our budget request includes $47.5 million for Federal sector
programs.
The litigation program is an important part of overall
enforcement. During 2006, our litigation program filed 371 new
lawsuits on the merits and resolved 418, resulting in monetary
benefits of $44.3 million. The 2008 budget request includes
almost $3 million in direct support of the litigation program.
That would bring our total litigation budget to just a
little under $57 million.
A strong litigation program provides an incentive for the
early resolution of charges during the administrative
enforcement process.
Regarding mediation, our budget request includes $22.3
million. In fiscal year 2006, 8,200 charges were resolved
through mediation. The mediation program is highly successful
and has been since its inception.
Madam Chair, you've noted a number of issues that you are
concerned about but I would like to point out that the
mediation program is one of the best, most successful efforts
EEOC currently has underway. An independent survey found that
96 percent of employers and 91 percent of charging parties
would use our mediation program again if they were offered it.
It's clear the best way to combat employment discrimination
is to prevent it from happening in the first place. We continue
to meet with advocacy and community groups, employer groups,
the legal community, students, educational organizations,
unions and members of the general public. We share with them
employment trends. We assess needs and we offer advice and
assistance. In fiscal year 2006, we conducted 5,634 outreach
events, reaching nearly 300,000 people. Approximately 4 percent
of the budget is devoted to outreach activities. We're asking
$12.6 million.
Regarding the FEPA, Senator Shelby, that you mentioned, I
would note that we are joined in our enforcement efforts, with
96 State and local partners generally called the Fair
Employment Practice Agencies (FEPA). The budget request for
FEPAs for 2008 is $28 million and I would just note at this
time that EEOC has no involvement and has had no involvement in
cutting any amount from the President's budget or otherwise for
our State and local partners.
The EEOC, like all agencies today, faces many challenges.
We are first and foremost an enforcement agency and we must
provide the quality and integrity of enforcement efforts that
the public expects and deserves. Approximately 80 percent of
our budget has been consistently devoted to relatively fixed
expenses, primarily payroll and rent. An additional 9 to 10
percent is dedicated to our partners in the State and local
fair employment practice agencies. The fixed costs of EEOC
leave us with little discretion in terms of shifting resources
to be able to respond to emerging or pressing needs. We
constantly look for ways to maximize the return on resources
and we look for better ways to align those resources with the
mission.
In August 2002, the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) conducted a study of our structure and
our program delivery. In February 2003, the Academy released
its findings. Most significantly, they recommended that we
establish a National Contact Center and that we align or
realign our field offices and that we restructure our
headquarters. We have acted on the first two of these
recommendations and we are just beginning work on the third. I
look forward to working with the subcommittee, getting the
subcommittee's ideas about reorganizing, restructuring our
headquarters office.
I want to make just a couple of points about the National
Contact Center (NCC). It began operation in March 2005 on a 2-
year pilot basis. It's based in Lawrence, Kansas. The pilot has
been extended for 1 additional year. While admitting that the
National Contact Center got off to a rough start, we had some
things to smooth out. The NCC allows 24-hour access to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It saves our
investigators and our attorneys from having to answer routine
calls. Since it began taking calls, the National Contact Center
has received over 1 million contacts from the public. This
includes telephone calls, e-mails, faxes.
Our initial focus was on training, monitoring for quality,
accuracy and the interpersonal skills of the people who would
answer the phone for us. As these have developed, we are now
prioritizing actions to increase call volume and to better
integrate the National Contact Center with EEOC procedures and
practices. Results are reflected in the most recently available
report, which shows that in March of this year, the National
Contact Center received over 65,000 contacts. At this rate, we
project that the contact center will handle 700,000 contacts
for us this year alone.
A recent report by NAPA found that EEOC is aggressively
addressing issues and the implementation and follow-up is
noteworthy regarding the contact center. The NAPA Panel also
found that the cost of moving the contact center into EEOC
would substantially exceed the current arrangement and that an
in-house run EEOC call center would cost about $8 million the
first year and almost $5 million every year after that.
Regarding repositioning, I would just simply say, again
this was a NAPA recommendation that we believe is a good idea
as we seek to realign our resources with our organizational
structure. While we are concerned about the rising inventory
and our ability to timely investigate charges and provide
efficient customer service, we are confident that strides are
being made, that improvements are underway and that we can
manage within the budget the President requests for 2008.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, Madam Chair, the EEOC cannot fight
discrimination in the 21st century with the same methods that
we've used in the past and we thank you for your support.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Naomi Churchill Earp
Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in support of the President's fiscal year
2008 budget request of $327.7 million. As you may know I became the
thirteenth Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in
September 2006. It is a distinct pleasure to appear before you to
discuss the needs of the EEOC for fiscal year 2008 as represented in
the President's request. I want to thank you for your past and
anticipated future support of the EEOC.
Our vision is for a strong and prosperous nation secured through
fair and inclusive workplaces. We strive to ensure equality of
opportunity in the workplace by enforcing the federal laws prohibiting
employment discrimination. Our newly implemented strategic plan builds
upon what the agency has accomplished to improve its operations. It
seeks to maintain the Commission's reach by continuing proactive
measures to prevent discrimination; resolving claims of discrimination
more proficiently; continuing alternative dispute resolution;
developing a more strategic focus in our enforcement, litigation and
federal programs; and renewing a strategy to eradicate race and color
discrimination while maintaining our internal operations.
eeoc's fiscal year 2008 budget request
EEOC's fiscal year 2008 budget request is for $327,748,000. Let me
highlight some components of our budget, approval of which will be
essential to meet the demands inherent to the fulfillment of our
mission in the 21st century. I am also submitting for the record a copy
of EEOC's Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report. The
report provides in greater detail the successes of our performance and
activities for the past year.
Staffing and Enforcement Workload.--Our budget request includes
$160.3 million for administrative charge processing. Our employees are
passionate about, and dedicated to, their work and produce a
substantial body of work. In fiscal year 2006 the EEOC received 75,768
private sector charges, a slight increase over 2005. We had 74,308
private sector resolutions and recovered $229.8 million in monetary
benefits that went directly to the victims of discrimination.
In fiscal year 2006 our average processing time per private sector
charge was 193 days, a 12 percent increase over our 171 day average in
fiscal year 2005. Our end of year inventory of private sector charges
was 39,946, a 19 percent increase over our fiscal year 2005 inventory.
We project an inventory of in excess of 54,000 by the end of fiscal
year 2007 and in excess of 67,000 by the end fiscal year 2008. We will
address this issue of rising average processing times within existing
resources, using an FTE level of 2,381, the same as fiscal year 2007
and an increase over our staff level at the end of fiscal year 2006. As
we staff up to our budgeted levels, we expect an increase in charge
processing (and, by extension, progress in our inventory).
EEOC also has responsibility for hearings and appeals of complaints
filed by federal employees. Our hearings data shows that we received
7,802 hearing requests, had 8,685 resolutions, ended the year with an
inventory of 4,912 and had an average processing time of 248 days. In
the area of federal sector appeals, we received 6,743 appeals, resolved
6,405, and ended the year with an inventory of 3,887. The average
processing time was 220 days for fiscal year 2006--a 13 percent
increase from the previous year. Our federal sector appeals data
reflects increases in inventory and average processing time and a drop
in resolutions.
Litigation.--Our litigation program is an important part of our
overall enforcement of the law. During fiscal year 2006, our litigation
program filed 371 new lawsuits on the merits and resolved 418,
resulting in monetary benefits of $44.3 million. We seek to maximize
the impact of our lawsuits through various means, including obtaining
relief for multiple aggrieved individuals and securing broad-based,
prospective relief to prevent the recurrence of discrimination. A
strong litigation program also provides an incentive for the early
resolution of a charge during the agency's administrative enforcement
process in the pre-cause determination and mediation process and in the
conciliation process. We also believe that publicity of high impact
litigation and other cases serves to increase voluntary compliance with
the laws we enforce.
The EEOC's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $2.9 million in
direct support to our litigation program, with a total litigation
budget of just under $57 million. We project a slight decrease in our
suit filings for fiscal year 2008, but the demands on our staff and our
resources are expected to increase. This is because we expect to devote
some of the requested funding to litigating larger and more complex
cases involving systemic discrimination developed through the
Commission's new Systemic Program. While these cases are resource-
intensive to litigate, they have great potential to pay enormous
dividends in the long run.
Systemic Program.--Last April, the Commission considered the
recommendations of our Systemic Taskforce which was led by Vice Chair
Leslie Silverman. The Commission unanimously passed a series of motions
calling for the Commission to reinvigorate its Systemic efforts.
Systemic cases are defined as ``pattern or practice, policy and/or
class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an
industry, profession, company, or geographic location.'' Since the
passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as with
later amendments and authority granted, Congress recognized that
employment discrimination cannot be eradicated without a focus on its
systemic nature. A strong systemic program is crucial to the
elimination of instances of pattern or practice, policy and class
discrimination which has a broad impact on an industry, profession,
company or geographic location.
Therefore, to complement private sector enforcement of Title VII,
the ADEA, the EPA and the ADA, the Commission has embarked upon an
enhanced systemic enforcement program. Systemic plans from all District
Offices were approved in December 2006. Commissioner charges based on
those plans have been submitted and signed by Commissioners. While
Systemic cases often take two or three years in order to investigate
and develop evidence to decide whether to proceed, I expect some of our
cases to be developed and resolved through settlement, conciliation or
a litigation filing within a year.
ADR/Mediation.--Our budget request includes $22.3 million for
mediation. In fiscal year 2006 we increased the number of our mediation
resolutions to 8,202. Since its inception, EEOC's mediation program has
been highly successful in resolving charges of employment
discrimination. In addition to the record number of resolutions
obtained through the mediation process in fiscal year 2006, a survey
conducted by independent researchers to evaluate the program's
effectiveness found that 96 percent of employers and 91 percent of
charging parties that participated in the mediation process would use
the mediation program again if offered. The Commission continues to
conduct extensive outreach and publicity efforts to highlight the
benefits of EEOC's mediation program and to expand charging party and
respondent participation. Additionally, as a result of significant
efforts focused on increasing the participation of employers in the
mediation program, the agency continues to utilize Universal Agreements
to Mediate (UAMs) to secure employer support for the program. These
agreements now number over 1,100.
Outreach.--We also employ other strategies by which we address
discrimination in the workplace. The best way to combat employment
discrimination is to prevent it from happening in the first place. The
Commission continues to work closely with its stakeholders to implement
new strategies to stop discrimination before it starts. We are striking
a vital balance between outreach and education on one hand, and
enforcement and litigation on the other. We meet with advocacy and
community groups, employer groups, the legal community, students and
educational organizations, labor unions and the general public to
assess current needs, and employment trends and issues. In recent
years, EEOC staff also has increased our number of media presentations,
including appearances on radio and television programs in languages
other than English, providing information to uncounted thousands of
people. The Commission recognizes the importance of outreach,
education, and technical assistance to reach out to under-served
constituents and to aid in voluntary compliance. In fiscal year 2006,
EEOC conducted 5,634 outreach events, reaching nearly 302,000 people.
Events included speeches, seminars, workshops, training programs,
expanded presence visits, cultural expositions, conferences, and
community group meetings. Approximately 4 percent of our budget
request, or $12.6 million is allocated to outreach.
Federal Sector.--The Commission fulfills its mandate to federal
employees and applicants for employment through our hearings and
appellate enforcement efforts, as well by exercising our oversight
authority and providing guidance, outreach and technical assistance.
Our budget request includes $47.5 million for our federal sector
programs.
The Federal Sector complaint process is one area by which
stakeholders agree that improvements need to be made. We believe that
the complaint process takes too long. By statute, federal agencies
initially are responsible for investigating charges filed against them.
Both Commissioners Stuart Ishimaru and Christine Griffin have been
working on recommendations for improvement to the complaint process,
and particularly on the agency investigative process. We have made
advances in the processes under EEOC's direct control. For example, the
inventory of requests for a hearing sharply declined from 5,994 in
fiscal year 2005 to 4,912 in fiscal year 2006. Additionally, the
average processing time from request to the conclusion of the hearing
declined slightly last year. These are welcome developments. Both
appeals inventory and average processing time have shown significant
decline since 2001-2002, but both showed increases in fiscal year 2006.
In addition, we continue to provide training, outreach, and
technical assistance to federal agencies in the implementation of our
Management Directive 715 to aid agencies in their efforts to build
model EEO programs.
Fair Employment Practices Agencies.--We are joined by our 96 State
and Local partners, Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs), in our
vital enforcement role. Our budget request calls for an amount for
state and local contracts up to $28 million. Additionally, we continue
to support the 64 Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs),
providing outreach and training to address the specific equal
employment issues facing the Native American community. During fiscal
year 2006, we successfully transitioned our State and local government
FEPA partners to the new Integrated Mission System (IMS), allowing EEOC
to retire the old legacy Charge Data System. This migration will
provide consistent data management and reporting across EEOC and FEPA
offices nationwide. In response to recommendations from the State and
Local Re-engineering Workgroup, during fiscal year 2006 we began a
comprehensive national training initiative for FEPA staff. This effort
will continue into fiscal year 2007.
Information Technology.--Over the past several years, EEOC has
completed several major information technology (IT) projects that have
streamlined internal processes, reduced paperwork burden, integrated
data, advanced our technological infrastructure, and allowed the agency
to conduct business more efficiently. The EEOC is taking a fresh look
at our Information Technology (IT) architecture and services in an
effort to improve operational efficiency, lower recurring costs,
increase customer satisfaction, and ensure that IT services are
properly aligned with agency priorities and strategic plans. Our
overall goal is more efficient usage of the resources that EEOC expends
to maintain our IT infrastructure, while realigning our architecture to
better support an environment that promotes collaboration, information
sharing and analysis, enhanced communications, and streamlined work
processes.
During fiscal year 2007, we are integrating our EEO-1 and IMS
systems, to provide improved analysis capabilities and data integrity.
We have also expanded usage of video conferencing and video-streaming,
using this technology to conduct depositions and external hearings,
provide remote interpretive services, conduct remote training sessions,
and improve collaboration/communication across our multiple office
locations. In addition, I have already discussed our systemic program,
and several initiatives are underway to ensure that EEOC's technology
infrastructure supports a seamless, nationwide, systemic practice.
During fiscal year 2008, we will maintain our critical technology
infrastructure but will not undertake new projects or expand current
services. Our ability to move forward on other major technology
initiatives, such as document management and data warehousing will be
largely dependent on future funding. EEOC is currently conducting
studies and developing business cases to support requests in these
areas.
Initiatives.--It is critical not only that we manage our inventory,
but that we spread the word that preventing discrimination benefits
everyone. Some of our outreach is conducted through several targeted
ongoing initiatives. These initiatives have no separate funding
component and are performed by all of our professional staff and
included in our overall outreach, education and technical assistance
budget.
In support of the President's New Freedom Initiative, we will
continue to work with state governments on strategies for removing
employment barriers and to promote the employment of people with
disabilities. Our Youth@Work Initiative empowers youth to understand
their workplace rights and responsibilities and encourages employers to
promote fair and inclusive workplaces. Our Small and Mid-size Business
Initiative expands outreach and technical assistance to the small
business community to encourage voluntary compliance. Our newest
initiative--ERACE, Eradicating Racism and Colorism in Employment--
addresses the persistence of race and color discrimination in the
workplace through outreach, dialogue, and the pursuit of priority and
emerging legal issues. In addition, in fiscal year 2005, we inaugurated
the agency's first-ever Freedom to Compete Award program to recognize
best practices in the private sector, public sector, associations and
other organizations. In the federal sector we have begun our LEAD
initiative (Leadership in the Employment of Americans with
Disabilities) to address the lack of improvement in the federal
government's employment of people with targeted disabilities.
national contact center and repositioning
The EEOC, like all federal agencies today, faces many challenges.
We are first and foremost an enforcement agency and we must provide the
quality and integrity in our enforcement efforts that the public
expects and deserves. As such, we strive to manage our resources to
most effectively and efficiently fulfill our enforcement mandate.
Approximately 80 percent of the EEOC's budget has been consistently
devoted to relatively fixed expenses, primarily payroll and rent. An
additional 9-10 percent has been dedicated to our partners in state and
local Fair Employment Practices Agencies. Therefore, our fixed costs of
approximately 90 percent of the agency budget leave us with little
discretion in terms of shifting additional resources to respond to
pressing needs. We continue to look for ways to maximize the return on
our resources.
In August 2002 we commissioned the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) to conduct a study of our structure and program
delivery systems. In February 2003, the Academy released its findings
and recommendations. The Academy Panel made a series of
recommendations, most significantly recommending that: (1) we establish
a National Contact Center (NCC) as a way to improve the quality,
timeliness, access, and consistency of services to EEOC's customers and
(2) that we realign our field offices flattening the field's management
staffing levels, and (3) that we reorganize our headquarters. We have
acted on the first two recommendations and have begun work on the
third.
National Contact Center.--After the Commission approved the
contract to establish the National Contact Center (NCC) in September
2004, it became operational in March 2005 on a two-year pilot basis and
was extended by the Commission for one additional year in July 2006.
The NCC operates under a contract to Vangent, Inc., from a facility in
Lawrence, Kansas. For fiscal year 2008, $2.5 million is included in our
budget for the operation of the NCC. The NCC allows 24 hour access to
the EEOC and the ability to speak with a live person 12 hours a day,
five days a week. Since it began taking calls on March 21, 2005, the
NCC has received more than 960,000 phone calls, nearly 48,000 emails,
and more than 2,500 faxes and letters from the public. The NCC's
Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) have handled more than 600,000
calls in English, Spanish and through the TTY. In fiscal year 2006, the
first full year of operation, the NCC handled over 500,000 contacts,
including 284,000 calls answered by CSRs. We expect the contacts
handled by the NCC to increase by 100 percent in 2007. The remainder
were handled via Interactive Voice Response (IVR), e-mail, fax, or
written correspondence. Initial focus was on training, monitoring for
quality, accuracy, and interpersonal skills. As these have been
developed, we are now prioritizing actions to increase call volume and
integrate NCC and EEOC procedures and practices.
In 2006 the NCC was reviewed by EEOC's Inspector General. The IG's
report made a number of recommendations that needed to be implemented
if the NCC was to be a more effective and integrated component of the
EEOC. Many steps have been taken to implement those recommendations.
Among the recommendations was the need to increase the call volume to
meet prior projections. Actions have been taken to increase call volume
since the beginning of fiscal year 2007. The result is reflected in the
most recently available monthly report which shows that in March 2007
the NCC received approximately 65,174 contacts, including calls and
emails, which projects to almost 800,000 contacts per years. A recent
(January 2007) report by the National Academy for Public Administration
found that EEOC has begun to aggressively address shortcomings in the
NCC's implementation and follow-up and that progress has been
noteworthy. The NAPA panel also found that the cost of moving the call
center into EEOC would substantially exceed the current arrangement,
and that an in-house EEOC-run NCC--staffed with EEOC employees--would
cost $8 million for the first year and $5.7 million annually
thereafter. Given the cost to bring the NCC in-house and the fact that
many improvement-plan initiatives still are being implemented, the
Panel recommended that EEOC maintain the current arrangement until and
unless a more detailed, comprehensive cost analysis is conducted.
Through the Center we have compiled data on the race, national
origin, gender, and age range of callers and can separate the reasons
people call into various topics. Among our findings, we now know that
less than 40 percent of the callers are calling about potential
charges. As of this month, we will be able to run reports on the bases
and issues that people call about and show trends by region, race,
national origin, gender, and age. This information will help us to know
how to more strategically focus our resources. The NCC is a good
investment--it allows the public greater access to our agency, permits
us to analyze trends and other data, and frees up EEOC employees to
focus on investigation, mediation and litigation. Overall, I believe
both the IG and NAPA assessments have resulted in an improved system
that will better serve the Commission. The extension of the NCC will be
the subject of a Commission vote later this year.
Repositioning.--The Commission also realigned its field
organization effective January 2006. This reduced the number of our
districts, reclassified the status of some offices, and allowed us to
balance the workload within our districts. This was done without
closing any offices or reducing staff.
With the implementation of the field repositioning plan and the
consolidation of 24 district offices into 15 districts, the agency has
realized the benefits from being able to redirect more staff to the
front line duties of enforcement and mediation. In preparing the
repositioning plan, we looked at the resources EEOC was spending on its
management and administrative positions. The previous EEOC structure
was put in place in 1979 when the Commission had approximately 3,800
employees; whereas in 2005 we had approximately 2,400 employees. We did
not believe it was prudent to retain a management and administrative
structure that was designed for a much larger workforce and was
designed when we did not have the advantages of modern technology for
our business uses. In fact, in 2006 we opened two new offices in Las
Vegas and Mobile to provide access to the EEOC in growing and
underserved areas. Beginning in 2003 we initiated a five-year program
to more appropriately size our field office space as leases expire,
with a goal of reducing rent costs by 35 percent. The lease on our
headquarters building expires in 2008 and we are working with our
landlord, the General Services Administration, to find a location that
will meet our current space requirements.
We are now working on the third of NAPA's major recommendations,
the evaluation and reorganization of our headquarters structure.
conclusion
We will continue to review our operations and infrastructure to
obtain savings wherever we can so that we are best able to place our
resources where they are most needed. We have been diligent in our
efforts to do so and to build a sound financial model. We believe that
the efficiencies that we have in place will in the long term reap
benefits; however, we cannot and will not lose sight of our current
posture and the need to continuously align our resources with our
mission.
It is essential that we be fully funded at the President's request,
so that we can maintain staff and deal with the inventory issue to the
best of our capability. While we are concerned about our rising
inventory and its impact on our ability to timely investigate charges
and provide efficient customer service, we are confident that we can
reduce the inventory and our charge processing time by more efficiently
utilizing our existing resources.
Madam Chair, the EEOC cannot fight discrimination in the 21st
century with the same methods that have been used in the past. Great
strides have been made in the past four decades, but there is no rest
for the EEOC. Approval of our 2008 budget is essential to permit the
EEOC to continue with its vital mission of ensuring that equality
exists in the American workplace. The citizens of our Nation deserve no
less. We must continuously work to effectively allocate our resources
so as to meet our statutory mandates. Madam Chair, we appreciate your
support and that of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
appear before you today and I will be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much for this testimony.
We are going to vote. The vote will start in about 15 minutes,
although it's never as calibrated as we all think. And I
understand my colleague, Senator Shelby, might not return, to
be able to return. Senator, what I'm going to suggest as a way
of proceeding that we turn to you and then----
Senator Shelby. I'll be quick.
Senator Mikulski. We want you to do what you need to do
here and then we'll return and when the vote occurs, we'll
recess, dash over and come right back.
OFFICE CLOSURES
Senator Shelby. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll just
get right to some of the issues that I raised. In my opening
statement, I mentioned that I was concerned about the cut in
State and local funding. You alluded to that. Your budget
request reduces funding to the State and local offices--it's my
understanding--by $2 million from the 2007 budget. Will this
cut cause any offices to be shut down? I mentioned the Mobile
office, which covers south Alabama, part of Mississippi and the
Florida Panhandle. We think that's an important office, not
because it's located in my State. It could be located in
Maryland or somewhere else but local offices do augment what
you're doing.
Ms. Earp. No, sir. We do not anticipate closing any local
offices.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Well, that's good.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, what do you mean by local
office? Are you talking about a Federal office? What do you
mean?
Ms. Earp. Well, definitely we don't plan to close any State
or local offices under the fair employment practices agencies
but we have no plans, have never considered closing any of the
Federal offices either.
Senator Shelby. That's good to know because I don't--if you
start closing offices anywhere, I don't believe you can carry
out the mandate that I know you want to do and have the EEOC to
do as part of your charter and your responsibilities. That was
my--that's one of my concerns, funding reductions.
At the time of the release of your 2008 budget request,
there were only 2,246. That's a decrease of 978 people, which
seems like a number over a short period of time, especially
since the backlog of charges has increased, that you mentioned.
How are these staffing reductions spread across the agency,
including field offices? Have you worked that out yet and if
you haven't, will you let us know what you're doing?
Ms. Earp. Well, we constantly balance the workload against
the number of people available to do the work but I would be
happy to submit to you a more detailed----
Senator Shelby. To the subcommittee, to all of us.
Ms. Earp. To the subcommittee.
Senator Shelby. Sure. If you would do this, that would be
very helpful from my standpoint. It's my understanding that
there are 2,381 is the actual number of current employees or is
this a ceiling for the maximum number you plan to employ? Do
you want to answer that for the record?
Ms. Earp. Yes, we plan to hire to our ceiling.
Senator Shelby. You plan to continue to, under your
leadership, for the EEOC to meet its responsibilities, do its
job?
Ms. Earp. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Well, we have a lot of confidence in
you. We know you are new on the job but you bring a lot of
experience to this job and that's what we're interested in, is
fairness in the workplace, fairness everywhere.
Ms. Earp. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Mikulski. You were quick. Senator Alexander, will
you be able to come back or would you like to proceed now as a
senatorial courtesy?
Okay. Then let me start the questioning and then we'll come
back with Senator Alexander and if there is a follow up round.
We want to acknowledge first of all, that the EEOC has been
flat funded for 5 years. Five years, with an expanding
population, expanding stress in terms of a variety of forms of
discrimination and this flat funding has had to take its toll,
which is one of the reasons we want to have this oversight
hearing.
Remember: management, morale, money. Let me get in--in the
Congress when we passed the continuing resolution, we were able
to come up with modest increases, particularly in the area as
Senator Shelby has said, we increased it in State and local and
also the private sector enforcement.
REPOSITIONING PLAN
But let me get then to the punch line. Over the last 6
years, there has been a reduction in full-time employees of 543
staff. Was that--I'm going to talk about what caused the
reduction and what are the consequences of the reduction,
meaning the impact. Was the reduction due to the so-called
right sizing, you know, all that nice private sector vocabulary
or was it really budget driven when one looks then at the
backlog and some of the other issues?
Ms. Earp. I believe that the reduction is multifaceted. We
stand in the current position today because like many Federal
agencies, we have had a number of employees for some time who
were retirement eligible. That's a factor. We also had early
outs and voluntary retirements in the last couple of years and
we've had some natural attrition.
I think if you take all of those together, compared to the
rising workload, it just makes sense. Over time, we have become
a smaller agency like many.
Senator Mikulski. But here's what I find difficult to
understand. You have a rising workload, a changing population,
even geographically, which I know you'll want to discuss with
the field offices, which would seem to me with the backlog
coming now of 40,000, don't you need more people?
Ms. Earp. Well, we believe that we can manage for 2008
within the President's budget. But I would submit, Madam
Chairman, that the current situation, which some view as a
crisis, started a number of years ago in the mid-nineties. In
2002, EEOC----
Senator Mikulski. We're not--we understand that. But we're
right here now, to get it right. So we know that the backlog
has been growing over a number of years. This is not finger
pointing at an administration. This is trying to pinpoint where
we are. We now have a backlog that we expect of 54,000 cases, a
60-percent increase in 3 years. So let me then get to this.
What does it take? What are your ideas for dealing with the
backlog? How will we systematically be able to deal with the
backlog and what do you need to be able to deal with this
backlog?
Ms. Earp. Well, we are doing a number of things to gain
efficiencies and attempt to manage the workload. We continue to
reassign staff. One important decision that was made recently
is to manage the agency as if it were a national model. In the
past, we've been stovepipes--each district responsible for its
resources and the management of its cases.
For example, with legal, we will function like a national
law firm so that work in one area, we move the people to the
work. That particular district no longer has to be held hostage
to the limited resources that it has there.
Senator Mikulski. Yes, but what are the top three things
that you need? So one is this national model and I'm not sure
what that means. But what are the top three things to deal with
the backlog? What do you anticipate the backlog reduction will
be for this coming year? We know backlogs can't just evaporate
but we know--so can you tell us the top three things--what are
your benchmarks and goals? How will you measure improvements in
the reduction of backlogs? What would be the matrix that you
would use?
So what is your plan? What are your top three? What are
your benchmarks for evaluation and what will be the matrix that
you will use to evaluate that these suggestions or management
models are effective?
Ms. Earp. Madam Chair, because we are finalizing our
strategic plan, I would really like to provide you with our top
three benchmarks, and especially our measures at a later time,
if you would allow me to do that.
Senator Mikulski. Certainly. We would like the benchmarks
and we'd like the matrix so then we're all--we all are clear
then on what are the criteria by which we can evaluate progress
and we can evaluate--and we can do our stewardship. But what
are the top three things that you are going to do to eliminate
the backlog?
So one is the national model idea.
Ms. Earp. One is to function on a national model. Number
two is to have enough savings to be flexible and we are getting
our savings from managing our rent, managing our attrition
rates, preparing to relocate the headquarters office, as well
as right size field offices and to use money saved there. To
better train our staff is the third.
Senator Mikulski. So what you're really doing with your
three ways of reducing backlog is trying to find money
elsewhere and to come up with savings. Is that right?
Ms. Earp. We're trying----
Senator Mikulski. Do you need more people? Or are you--the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--listen, we're not trying
to embarrass you, please. Are you OMB embargoed and can't tell
me that?
Ms. Earp. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. Okay. Well, I think that answers the
question. If I could come back to the 543, were they in
particular areas, like law? Were they back office support? Were
they paralegals? Are there ways that technology can help you do
things apart from this call center? We'll come back to that.
Where did you lose most of your people?
Ms. Earp. Most staff were lost with investigators and
administrative support staff. Paralegals, clericals, the people
who are a part of a very people-driven process on the customer
service end. We've had less loss, I think, with attorneys but a
lot on the enforcement staff with investigators.
Senator Mikulski. So really, the front line staff, which is
where the calls come in and then the people who actually
initiate, particularly that initial claim and that's where,
because you've lost investigators, the backlog in the initial
claims is the one that's growing. Am I correct in that?
Ms. Earp. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And then, of course, investigators need
what we'll call the back office support, is that correct?
Ms. Earp. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Can you tell me about how many
investigators you lost and what would that be in terms of a
budget item?
Ms. Earp. I can't provide budget information but over a
period of time, we've lost about 500 employees, the majority of
those being on the enforcement side of the house versus the
legal side.
Senator Mikulski. Right. And enforcement is a word to mean
the investigation of the complaints, which then determine the
nature--when the validity of the complaint and the nature of
the complaint, which meant some could go into mediation and
some would have to follow our legal procedures, is that right?
Ms. Earp. That's correct.
Senator Mikulski. But this is the gateway and then would
you say that this is also now the choke point in terms of
creating the backlog?
Ms. Earp. Yes. The inventory and receipts come in on the
enforcement side of the house so the inventory grows on the
enforcement side of the house.
Senator Mikulski. Okay. My time has expired. I want to turn
to Senator Alexander and Senator, why don't you proceed?
SALVATION ARMY LITIGATION
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a
question on a little different subject. Thank you for coming
and I say, as I reflect on the discussion you've just had with
the chairman about the need to allocate to resources and the
56,000 case backlog. Are you aware of the lawsuit that the EEOC
has filed against the Salvation Army, alleging that they fired
two employees for not being able to speak English, according to
the Salvation Army's policy that its employees should speak
English in the workplace?
Ms. Earp. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. I want to ask you about that a little
bit. As I understand the facts, the Salvation Army has a policy
that says employees are expected to speak English and that it
gave two employees who did not, 1 year to learn English and
then when they didn't, it fired them. Am I to understand that
any business in the United States cannot have a policy that
requires its employees to speak our national language?
Ms. Earp. No, sir. The--and I don't want to say too much
about the Salvation Army case because it is ongoing. But the
question, when an employer has an English only standard, as is
alleged in this particular case, the issue for us is whether or
not there is a business necessity for that requirement. If the
charging party, the victim, the plaintiff, is engaged in work
that doesn't require customer contact that is not a matter of
health or safety, that there appears to be no legitimate reason
to require English only, then it becomes unlawful or at least--
--
Senator Alexander. Well, whose job is it to prove that? It
would be the employer's responsibility, right?
Ms. Earp. Well, the employer has a responsibility to
articulate for us a business necessity.
Senator Alexander. Right. So every employer in the country
has got to come before the EEOC and prove that there is a
reason for speaking English only. Do you conduct your staff
meetings in more than one language?
Ms. Earp. No, sir.
Senator Alexander. What's the reason for that?
Ms. Earp. I only speak one.
Senator Alexander. Well, what about your employees? Do you
hire employees who only speak English in your staff, for
example?
Ms. Earp. No, we have staff that are bilingual.
Senator Alexander. Well, no--only English. I mean, if
Senator Shelby were to say, I only hire employees who can speak
English because we have maybe 100 languages spoken in Alabama
and I want to make sure that the common language is spoken
here. Would he have to justify that to the EEOC that he has a
business reason to do that?
Ms. Earp. No. I think the circumstances under which we
would be interested or get involved are very specific and on a
case-by-case basis. An employer who establishes an English only
rule has a responsibility to show a business necessity for that
rule.
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, I only have 2 minutes
left. I find that an astonishing waste of your time and
contrary to every effort we're making in the United States
today to try to have one country. I mean, I've spent the last
40 years voting for civil rights acts, but the reason was so
that we could have a single country and there are only a few
things that unite us.
One is our common language, English. One is a few
principles that we learned in the Declaration of Independence--
I mean, I hardly know where to start with this. The Senate,
last year, in debating the immigration legislation, declared
English our national language, which you're now suing the
Salvation Army to say they can't require employees to speak,
even though they clearly posted it and employees don't have to
work for the Salvation Army--the Senate said, we're going to
give 500 grants to help prospective citizens learn English.
The Senate said that people have to learn English before
gaining legal status here. Since 1906, people have had to learn
English to become citizens of the United States. It's not a
punitive requirement. It's a requirement to help us make a
common language.
We have 28 languages spoken at the school my daughter went
to. And it seems to me, completely contrary to everything I
know about the importance of achieving unity in our country for
us to, in effect, by your lawsuit, require every single
employer in America to prove business necessity to the EEOC in
order to require English in the workplace. Some may have to
worry that if they post that in order to work here, you have to
speak our common language, English, that they may be sued by
you if they don't.
Carlos Ghosn is the head of Nissan. He went to Japan to
take charge of that company. He requires them all to speak
English in their meetings because they need a common language.
I don't know how you can conduct a staff meeting at the
Salvation Army Thrift Store if people speak 15 different
languages. A 9-1-1 telephone call wouldn't be useful to a
Chinese person if the person who answered the phone spoke
Spanish.
So I would like to respectfully ask that if you have a
backlog of 56,000 cases, that you put your resources on
something other than harassing the Salvation Army Thrift Store,
which is a nonprofit, charitable organization that relies on
contributions for having to hire lawyers to defend for
requiring their employees to speak our common language. I can't
imagine why the EEOC would do that. And if necessary, I'll
introduce legislation to permit employers in the United States
to require their employees to speak our common language in the
workplace. I never had imagined that might be necessary but if
you persist in this, then I intend to do that.
Senator Shelby. I just want to ask the chairperson, what is
the origin of this lawsuit, assuming that what he is asking is
factual and I believe, to me, that's--you know, we're promoting
English as the language that unifies us. It binds us together.
I think if you're doing this, you're going down a path that
Congress is going to hit you hard on and I believe if you're
doing this, I don't know what the legal basis of that is. I've
never heard of such.
Ms. Earp. EEOC has had a longstanding policy that
essentially says when an employer takes an action that could be
construed as an action based on that person's ethnicity, their
race or their gender, that the employer has a responsibility to
articulate a reasonable, legitimate business necessity. In
other words, an employer can't say to someone, you can't speak
your foreign language, your native language on the job unless
there is a business reason. If it were for health, a nurse, if
it were for public safety, a police officer, then it is
required. But if the person is cleaning your floor or if the
person is pressing your clothes or in this case, merely folding
clothes but not having--allegedly not having any contact with
the public. There appears to be no business reason to deny that
person the right to speak their native language.
Senator Shelby. Are we talking about working or speaking?
You know, why--I personally wouldn't hire anybody in my office
here or anything else, any other business if they couldn't
speak English because English is the business language of this
country. They couldn't help me. They couldn't help. I think
you're missing the point.
Senator Mikulski. Before the Chair responds, I'm going to,
upon the completion of this line of questioning, the
subcommittee will stand in recess and the first of the three to
get back that wants to continue questioning can pick up on it.
I'm going to excuse myself now. Did you want to?
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Madam Chairman, that will be
all my questions. I would just ask the Chairman in light of her
56,000 case backlog and the commitment of this country to
English as our national language, to think very carefully about
whether this not only is a wise use of resources, but to
consider that we've required every new citizen in this country
to learn English since 1906. That's not discrimination. That's
a form of national unity and we seek ways to encourage people
not to learn English, not to learn it at the beginning of the
previous century.
Organizations all over America required the learning of
English so that we could be one country, so we could talk with
one another and that was one way we became Americans. Our oath
of citizenship actually renounces where we've come from and
says we've become an American and 650,000 people take it this
year and they don't get to be Americans unless they speak
English.
I introduced legislation last year the Senate passed to say
you can become a citizen a year earlier if you become
proficient in English to try to send a signal of the importance
of our common language. So it seems to me that if a company
posts this and believes it is important to speak the common
language, to have an integrated team, that it shouldn't be
required to hire lawyers and justify to the EEOC why that
company requires its employees to speak our common language in
the workplace. So I hope you'll think carefully about this and
about the relative value of it in terms of all the other things
that you have to do.
Ms. Earp. Senator, may I seek a private meeting with you at
some point and perhaps your staff, to share the policies and to
further discuss what your concerns are?
Senator Alexander. I'd be happy to do that, Madam Chair and
now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to join my colleagues and go
vote.
Ms. Earp. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science is officially reconvened and continues its
oversight hearing on the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
REPOSITIONING PLAN
Madam Chair, I want to go into questions about the field
offices and the results of the National Academy for Public
Administration (NAPA) study. Ordinarily, I'm a big fan of NAPA
studies. When I was both the Chair and the ranking member of
VA/HUD, we used--Senator Bond and I used NAPA a lot. In fact,
it helped start one of the initial reforms of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under President Bush One.
But I'm not so sure about this NAPA set of recommendations and
the field studies and the track it put us on and now where we
are with that.
As I understand it, this resulted in--the number of
district offices was reduced from 23 to 15. Is that correct?
Ms. Earp. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And are there plans for further
reductions now?
Ms. Earp. No.
Senator Mikulski. So you feel this is it?
Ms. Earp. The field repositioning has been effective since
January 2006. For now, things seem to be working well. There
are no plans to further realign the field although we are
looking at restructuring headquarters.
Senator Mikulski. Well, we'll come back to headquarters
because there is a lot in the--provided in the news about the
headquarters.
Let me go to where I'm concerned about the field offices
and then I'm going to talk about the Maryland field office,
which put us in a very prickly relationship. Now, when the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission embarked upon the
implementation of the reduction of the number of district
offices, the authorizing committee that Senator Kennedy chaired
and I was a member, voiced very strong opposition to that with
your predecessor. So again, this is something again that you've
inherited and we had very serious concerns about which offices
were going to be downsized, not only numerically but in terms
of stature and in terms of the focus of what their work would
be and you're familiar with the district office, the local
office has very different functions.
We were ignored and our problem is this--here's our
national problem. Our national problem is number one,
population centers are changing. So as you know, the growing
populations, particularly in our border States. If our western
Senators were here, Texas, New Mexico, of course California--
with that is bringing other kinds of challenges on
discrimination.
Also we have places in our country where there are centers
of large Muslim populations. They feel that because of dynamics
in the larger society, they are facing discrimination from the
kind of clothes they could wear in the workplace to overtly
being shut out of possible jobs.
So my question to you is the framework that we now have for
district offices demographically outdated? And if you don't
know the answer to that, that's okay because I'm going to get
to another part of that. But do you see? This study was done in
2002. We're in a very different world order now, in many
different ways.
I'm concerned that your location of your field offices--
we're not talking about closing any but really helping you
meet--we have a saying. I'm a professionally trained social
worker. I know you come from a background of Federal agencies--
to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.
You have to meet people where they are, not where you've got
your field office.
So my question is, that in the analysis of where your cases
are coming from, where your analysis is with the new demography
of our country, is in fact the need for more field offices,
more strategically located on the basis of the complaints that
are coming. In other words, where the dynamics seem to be and
also where the population centers are that seem to be
experiencing significant barriers in terms of employment and
employment discrimination. Do you see where I'm heading?
Ms. Earp. I do and I have two responses. One response is,
we think for the short term that the decision to open the
southern office in Mobile and the western office in Las Vegas,
we're right on--that they were consistent with the demographic
trends.
My longer answer is, one of the positive things about the
National Contact Center is it allows us to capture the data
from where the calls come in, not just the issue raised but
what part of the country right down to the zip code, that call
came in from. So in the long term, I think that we will be
better able to refine where offices are located.
The only other point that I would make, Madam Chair, is we
have historically tried to put the offices in a transportation
center because often charging parties don't own cars. Sometimes
they are not the highest socioeconomic rungs so it has been
important to at least have those offices where public
transportation is accessible.
Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, I think that's a very
important goal and we'll come back to again, to the Maryland
situation. But to be sure I understand the answer to your
question, you want to use the data from the call center as a
way of analyzing trends, both in the nature and the type of
complaint that you're getting, because it's supposed to be
gateway and number two, you want to look at it in terms of
where is the volume coming from, to then assess whether you
need more field offices. Is that correct?
Ms. Earp. Well, we have the capability of looking at that
data over time to see exactly what the issues are and where the
issues are coming from. I don't think that we have given, at
this particular point, any study or thought to opening
additional field offices. Obviously that requires a lot of
thought, a lot of deliberation, a lot of consultation with----
Senator Mikulski. But I'm thinking about it. And I believe
that members of the subcommittee are thinking about it because
one of the hallmarks of our country is the fact that if you
feel you are discriminated against, you have legitimate
channels for redressing grievances. There are countries that
are facing challenges, European Union (EU) countries with
immigrant populations where they feel that they are frozen in
place and they become targets of recruitment for radical
organizations.
We, on a bipartisan basis, believe in the opportunity
ladder, which I believe you do believe in and you yourself, as
I, have lived and benefited from this ladder. At the same time
there must be a place to redress your grievances. In this
country a person should not feel that you are frozen in place
because of what your last name looks like or the clothes you
wear or the accent that you might bring into the marketplace
and if you feel that, if you feel you have a legitimate place--
you have a place to take a legitimate grievance and that
grievance will be met in a fair, open, consistent way, it's our
way. It's the American way. And because it is an American way,
that's why we've been able to, every generation, right or
wrong, in every generation, welcome these new people.
So you see why we feel--it's not about field offices and
it's not about my district or that district. It's about America
and it's about having the opportunity to redress grievances.
FUNDING
I was looking at--first of all, I'm very disturbed that the
EEOC has been flat funded for 5 years. We also know it's been
underfunded for a number of years so we're not pointing to an
administration though this one has kept it flat funded while
other benefits went in other areas.
So we're looking at that. I was going to suggest a study
but before we get into that, what we will then ask for you and
your team to think about it. Because if the call center is
going to be your tool, then the call center has got to work
right and I don't have a lot of confidence right this minute in
the call center. So let's put this on hold because I'm going to
come back to the field offices.
But you see where we are heading. It is to mission and to
purpose. It's not about bureaucracy and these questions are
meant so that we can have--we want America to be America.
That's what we want. We want the Constitution and its laws to
be able to be enforced and we want the people who are asked to
do that to be in the right place with the right number of
people, with the right tools to do this. That's where we're
heading with this.
DOWNSIZING BALTIMORE OFFICE
Now, let me go to the field offices. My favorite topic of
course, is Baltimore. We got into a very prickly relationship
with your predecessor and we got into a prickly one for several
reasons. One, we felt we were not listened to and I'll give the
reasons why we raised our challenges to the downsizing or down
grading of the Baltimore office.
Second, we felt that one, there was a promise made to take
a look at it, which was never fulfilled. And number three, we
felt that it was overall symbolic of what was felt by many
employees, an imperial management style. So you need to know,
that's where all the prickly comes from. Okay?
Now, let's start with not being heard. One of the reasons
we were concerned about the Baltimore District Office is not
because it's Baltimore and Senator Mikulski's going to fight
for one more thing and don't close this and don't downgrade
that. Part of that would be true. You know me. You're my
constituent. So you know where we would be.
But I will go to the Baltimore office and what its job is.
As you know, Maryland is the home to Federal employees. You
yourself worked at, I believe, at NIH.
Ms. Earp. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. As well as other Federal agencies and I
believe you developed certain diversity initiatives, which were
much needed at the agency. As you know, it's had its own
challenges with equal opportunity and you see, that's my whole
point that within the National Capital region, not only
Baltimore but also Northern Virginia.
We are home to probably the largest number of Federal
employees than anywhere in the United States of America.
Because of that and in the Baltimore area, we're the home to
significant ones, like the Social Security Administration
(SSA). There are over 15,000 people who work there because it
functions 24/7. You just don't do Social Security--it's not
only the people who take the claims--all of that processing,
which means the right check to the right person right on time,
goes 24/7.
That Social Security office in and of itself has an
incredible history. When Lyndon Johnson was President and he
said that the Federal Government would be the model employer,
many African-Americans for the first time, felt that if you
were talented, you could go to work for the Federal Government.
So people like Kurt Schmoke's dad, with a background in
chemical engineering, could go to work at Aberdeen. Men and
women who had experience in law or business could come to
Social Security.
If you came to me with the Woodlawn community and saw the
people who work there and people who retired. They worked hard.
They did the right check at the right amount to the right
person at the right time but they also, because they had
opportunity at Social Security, could move on up, raise a
family, send their kids to school and make a life. I only use
that as an example.
What we know in the Baltimore area is that because of the
number of Federal employees that they needed a place to go. So
just even in that larger metropolitan area, then also we are in
tremendous economic change with populations. Twenty-five
percent of our population in the State is African-American,
still facing redlining and sidelining.
As you know, sometimes it is sidelining, not the overt
discrimination and you are an expert in the field. So we were
concerned that because they eliminated the regional attorneys,
they eliminated 20 jobs and then they downsized, telling
essentially the Baltimore metropolitan area, go to Washington.
But going to Washington along with the Washington
metropolitan demands on EEOC, which again, looking back from
your National Institutes of Health (NIH) hat, you know the
stresses and strains and now you see it from a management
capacity. If Webb and Warner were here, they would be talking
about the Northern Virginia area. So you see why we didn't want
Baltimore downsized? But we weren't heard. We were not heard.
Then we were told, oh, I will take a look at it and then we
were told that it would be kept a district office. That word
was broken with me. Okay? And it was actually broken with
Senator Kennedy, who also was aware of this.
So it seemed like the team was clueless about being
involved with Congress. Now, we can get involved in a lot of
tying you up into knots and into all that. I don't want to do
that. I believe it is new leadership and it's time for a new
start. And I think that's what you want. Am I right?
Ms. Earp. Absolutely.
Senator Mikulski. Do you want to respond to what I've said
so far?
Ms. Earp. Yes. Let me start----
Senator Mikulski. I went through this narrative because I
felt--one, because again, we have national responsibility but I
want to use my situation as a cameo because other colleagues
have some of the same questions.
Ms. Earp. Well, first of all, Madam Chair, let me say, I
hear you. I hear you loud and clear and I thank you for giving
me an opportunity to demonstrate my leadership and my
commitment. I start by saying, I respect the role of the
legislative branch, and obviously my Appropriations Committee,
the subcommittee, I respect tremendously.
I intend to operate in a spirit of transparency and one of
comity and respect for your role and to seek the subcommittee's
advice and guidance on changes, proposals, activities at the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and I would also say, I
am a political appointee today but I have 20 years prior to
today, of being a career civil servant. I don't think anyone
who has ever worked with me would describe me as being
imperial. My style is open----
No, no, no--I absolutely agree. I say that only as an
example of what the changed environment is at the Commission
today.
Senator Mikulski. I want to talk about a way forward. First
of all, I'd like to talk about the National Capital region and
the tremendous changes that are coming to the region and then
the fact that I would like an evaluation of the field offices
and so on, in the National Capital region.
The National Capital region, to me, is Northern Virginia,
really up to around Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Okay? And what is
happening is that base realignment and closure (BRAC) is
coming. The base realignment and with that means more jobs.
There are more jobs that are coming to Fort Belvoir than have
ever come before.
If we look at Aberdeen, Fort Meade, Naval Bethesda, these
are all--Walter Reed is consolidating but also more coming to
Aberdeen and to Fort Meade. We estimate that anywhere from
10,000 to 30,000 new jobs are going to be created by base
realignment that either will be direct civil servants jobs or
private sector jobs and particularly in the area of security.
Along with that will come support services in law, real estate,
et cetera. So the good news is, our economy will continue to
boom.
At the same time, there will be new populations coming and
some directly related to Federal employment. What I would like
is to evaluate what it is that the EEOC needs to do to be ready
because this was a 2002 NAPA study, which is no longer relevant
to what the population is or won't be or whatever, particularly
for those who have responsibility to Federal employees or
private contractors funded by the Federal Government.
Because if we're not the--you know this--if we're not the
model employer, how do we go to the private sector? If we are
not the best, then how can we ask them to do this? So, this is
why I would like to both--we don't want to micromanage the
nature of the study. We want to work with you in a very
collegial way to take a look now at the National Capital region
and what is here, both in public and private areas and how we
need to reassess in a post-2002 world. Do you follow me?
Ms. Earp. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. So we can get at what do we need and
where do we need it and is it really dysfunctional to get
people who are working in certain areas to have to come to a
Washington office that is already overburdened and overstressed
because it's the Washington office. It's the mother ship
office.
Ms. Earp. Madam Chair, would you anticipate that we would
fund this study out of the 2008 budget?
Senator Mikulski. You mean fund the study? For whatever I'm
going to ask you to do, I will make sure you have the money to
do it.
Ms. Earp. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Okay? No, because we are--I will come
back to the fact that I think I and others are concerned about
the flat funding of the EEOC. We acknowledge that you've had to
forage for funds so we're not--anything we're going to ask you
to do, we will be a pay as you go subcommittee. Okay? That will
be my contract with you. What I need back from you then is us
to find out what it is that we need so we are focusing on the--
I'm a data driven lady. So on the basis of sound data that has
had rigorous intellectual analysis about what is it that we
need, even if it takes us a while to get to it but we'll know
then what we need. And we can discuss whether that should be
done internally or done externally. Okay?
Because I come back to the fact that Maryland--we get
casework calls but Maryland constituents are complaining about
their complaints not being fully investigated. They feel that
they are turned away early--that for a variety of reasons, they
don't feel that their complaints are being rigorously
investigated.
So what we want to be able to do is look not only at
Baltimore but the Capital region, looking at BRAC. As I said,
just in Maryland alone, over 40,000 jobs but they really won't
be coming until 2009 and 2010. We can just take a look at what
will come. We also know that--so that's where, that's kind of
where we are. Does that sound like a good way to go?
Ms. Earp. Yes, ma'am.
NATIONAL CALL CENTER
Senator Mikulski. Now, this takes me to the call center.
You know, I understand why NAPA recommended the call center but
we were really concerned because the Federal Government has not
had good experiences with national call centers, whether it has
been the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whether it
has been the Immigration Service call center and so on.
And what we were concerned about that with this 2-year
contract, that with all the work that needs to be done, that
they only agreed to 36 jobs. They got 7 days of training. They
had training and experience in civil rights law. Calls never
reached to the volume that EEOC predicted. I do acknowledge the
facts that you have presented to the subcommittee seem to be
different than what we heard even say, 3 months ago, about this
call center.
But to us, the call center has never lived up to its
promise. We're concerned about the fact that though we say it's
24 hours, it's really an answering machine, I believe, so could
you tell me what you want to do with this call center? Because
we're not happy with it. And yet, you're going to rely on it to
be--play a very important role and then also to tell you
trends.
Ms. Earp. I would absolutely stipulate that the call
center, the National Contact Center got off to a rocky start.
But it is so dramatically improved from its beginnings in March
2005. The call center currently will answer the phone in an
average of 1 minute. There are times that the wait is somewhat
longer but on average, in 1 minute. It allows us to track data,
to do monitoring and the question about training for the
customer service representatives--they receive the same
training that we give brand new investigators.
Senator Mikulski. When did you do that? When was all that?
That's not what we were told. We were told 7 days of training.
I think you give your investigators more than that.
Ms. Earp. Not initially.
Senator Mikulski. You mean your investigators only get 7
days of training in civil rights law?
Ms. Earp. They get 1 week of basic training. Now the thing
with investigators is, we have an opportunity over time, to
refine that training and they're on the ground so they get to
practice their skills. But the customer service representatives
are not responding to in-depth inquiries. We think that they
have sufficient training to do that first response to the
caller coming in. It is--despite the problems in the beginning,
it is admittedly substantially improved today.
The issue is, if we don't have a national way to answer
phones of some sort, either the one that we're currently
working with or one that is inside, we are going to be in a
crisis because they answer more than 600,000 calls for us,
which frees up--which frees up investigators and attorneys to
do the real jobs that they are hired for.
Senator Mikulski. You know, you and I could go back and
forth on the call center and I don't know where it would take
us. Whenever I ask a question, I always wonder, what's the
destination? In other words, where am I going? What I--I want
to acknowledge the validity of the need for a call center.
Okay? So we understand that.
The question is, is this call center really operating the
way it should and what all does it need to be run effectively?
I'm not disputing what you are saying. We could spend a lot of
time going back and forth but I feel that I need an independent
analysis of the call center. This is not being provocative with
you. But where we then would have some type of document, again,
for a way forward.
So you see where I'm heading with the EEOC? We've given the
EEOC a forum that they have not had in a number of years. I--we
checked our records. We can't find when was the last time this
subcommittee asked the EEOC to come and tell us their story and
that we could share this.
So this is one of the reasons we wanted to because our
accountability and oversight is to see what is our job and then
what is your job and again, for the way forward. So where I am,
because we could talk about headquarters, et cetera, is to be
sure that we have, for the need for the management reforms
necessary, we're going to be looking at a way of getting an
independent analysis.
HEADQUARTERS RELOCATION PLANS
I'm going to come back to this in 1 minute but please tell
me, tell me about this headquarters situation. I read that you
are moving. I read that people don't like the fact that you're
moving. I read they don't like where you're moving. We wonder
about--do you have to move? What is it going to cost to move?
Is this something that will take a lot of time, energy and be a
distraction from the mission? Do you want to talk to us about
the move?
Ms. Earp. Well, change is always difficult and a move like
this one--I was actually working for the Commission when the
lease was signed on the building that we're currently in and I
remember some employees back then not wanting to move from
Columbia Plaza, which is where we were at the time. So the move
is difficult.
But in terms of managing our resources, we believe that a
move is necessary. The Commission has factored into its budget
process for the last 5 years, savings from rent. We moved the
Washington field office into the headquarters building 1 year
ago and immediately saved $500,000.
So the plan for some time has been as leases expire, to
right size the office. We've lost employees so we don't need as
much space. So the short answer is, yes, we think that we need
to move, not only because we don't need as much space as we
currently occupy but because the current landlord doesn't
really want us to stay. He really wants to go back commercial
with that building.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has served as our
agent in this process. They effectively recommended a spot to
us, which our very enterprising employees are speculating about
where it is but really, because of the Procurement Integrity
Act, we're not even at liberty to say exactly what the location
is.
Senator Mikulski. You mean I have to go into a classified
hearing like I would with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to find this out?
Ms. Earp. Well, I----
Senator Mikulski. No, I understand. But what you're saying
is you have to move?
Ms. Earp. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And that the landlord has told you to
move?
Ms. Earp. Essentially, the lease expires next year and he
is----
Senator Mikulski. The lease expires when?
Ms. Earp. July 2008.
Senator Mikulski. So it's July 2008, not July 2007. Okay.
Ms. Earp. No but the process to plan for a move when you
have technology, you have case files, you have to notify the
public. We thought that we needed to get started. In fact, I
feel we're starting a little bit late because we're only giving
ourselves just a little more than 1 year when we probably
should have had as many as 18 months to prepare.
Senator Mikulski. Well--but you are working with GSA?
Ms. Earp. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Because all the street buzz is that you
were acting on your own.
Ms. Earp. Not at all.
Senator Mikulski. Kind of like drive-by buying.
Ms. Earp. No.
Senator Mikulski. So you're not a drive-by buyer for a new
Federal----
Ms. Earp. No, ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think again, we're always
concerned about the process and the integrity of the process.
As long as EEOC feels that it has to move and it is working
with GSA that really is along the path that the subcommittee
would want to go.
It's now 11:30. We have many other questions, which we will
submit for the record because we are--I'm due on the Senate
floor for speaking on drug safety.
But I think this has been a very informative and
constructive hearing but where I want to go forward is to
really get a picture now of where is the EEOC? And I'm going to
ask for--and I want you to know, I'm not now being--I don't
want to be viewed as pugnacious, but I am going to ask for a
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of EEOC because I
want to get a sense of what was done.
And what they would recommend needs to be done, what was
the financial impact of restructuring and ultimately, what does
this mean in terms of enforcing our civil rights? And we'll
look to your leadership team too, to discuss what additional
studies do we need to do in addition to this, to see where EEOC
needs to go.
This is the 21st century and we are righting the wrongs of
so many centuries, in terms of the mission of this agency, yet
we have new populations and new challenges and new other ways
of discrimination. You said you were a career employee for how
long?
Ms. Earp. Twenty years.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Mikulski. Twenty years. So you came in 1987. For
those in 1977, it was another form of discrimination. For those
first employees at the Social Security Administration, they had
faced another kind, et cetera, et cetera. And we're just to
make sure that the mission stays the same but we have new
contemporary challenges. So we want to make sure that you're in
the right place, meaning you are located in the right place
with the right number of people, with the right resources so
that we do the right thing by the people. So that's where we
are.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Commission for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
backlogs
Question. How can EEOC meet its mission when backlogs continue to
grow and the organization cuts staff?
Answer. The Commission is keenly aware of the problems associated
with a growing inventory of charges. Notwithstanding this challenge,
the agency has and will continue to fulfill its mission of eliminating
unlawful employment discrimination based on age, disability, race,
color, sex, national origin and religion. We wish to put our rising
inventory and other challenges in perspective. In 2006, during the last
fiscal year, EEOC successfully mediated 8,200 charges--the most in EEOC
history; resolved (closed) 74,000 charges filed by members of the
public; processed to closure 5 Commissioner or systemic charges;
recovered more than $274 million for victims of discrimination through
administrative and legal enforcement; and filed 371 new lawsuits on the
merits. Additionally, the agency secured, in thousands of cases, non-
monetary relief such as changes in personnel policies, reasonable
accommodations and modifications to employment testing. All of this was
accomplished with existing staff.
It is true that over the last year, EEOC has eliminated several
managerial positions. As senior individuals have left the agency, their
specific jobs were not filled but associated savings were allocated to
filling front line investigator, trial attorney and mediator vacancies.
At present, EEOC hires managers only for those positions that are
critical to the success of the agency mission, but we continue to
conduct hiring of groups of investigators and trial attorneys. The
National Contact Center is also producing efficiencies. Our front-line
enforcement staff now can work on cases uninterrupted rather than
having to respond to general inquiry calls, which number nearly 700,000
calls annually. Thus, staff are focusing on the jobs they were hired to
perform.
The Committee can be assured that EEOC will continue to manage our
resources effectively, increasing supervisory spans of control,
eliminating managerial layers and training our staff in new
technological developments. We are most fortunate to have a talented,
highly-motivated workforce so that we can continue our mission of
eliminating unlawful employment discrimination ``root and branch''.
Question. How is employee morale at EEOC?
Answer. The Partnership for Public Service reported in their ``Best
Places to Work in the Federal Government 2007 Rankings'' that when
compared to 30 large agencies, EEOC ranked 24th. The EEOC ranked 2nd in
Employee Skills/Mission match in this report.
Based on the ``2006 Federal Human Capital Survey'' conducted by the
Office of Personnel Management, EEOC rated 21st on Job Satisfaction out
of 36 agencies.
Question. How many cases, on average, does a single EEOC
investigator handle at the same time?
Answer. Over the last 5\1/2\ years, the average workload per
investigator based on end of year data has been approximately 40
assigned charges. However, as the chart below indicates, during the
period in question, the average workload has increased steadily from a
low of 28 charges per investigator assigned in 2002 to a high of 63 at
mid-year 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending End Inventory Investigators
--------------------------------- Assigned
-------------------
Total ADR Enforcement Charges
Total Per
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 \1\................................................... 45,943 6,997 38,946 619 63
2006....................................................... 39,946 6,485 33,461 653 51
2005....................................................... 33,562 5,700 27,862 711 39
2004....................................................... 29,966 5,289 24,677 730 34
2003....................................................... 29,368 5,229 24,139 785 31
2002....................................................... 29,041 5,540 23,501 829 28
----------------------------------------------------
Average.................................................... 34,638 5,873 28,764 721 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mid-year data.
Question. How many support personnel help a single investigator
handle his or her cases?
Answer. The number of support personnel varies from office to
office depending on the on-board resources. Most field offices have an
Investigator Support Assistant (ISA) on-board. See Attachment I for
breakout of ISAs and other support personnel by office. The ISA
performs a range of investigator-related duties that includes providing
pre-charge counseling to potential charging parties. In some field
offices, ISAs perfect charges received in the mail. Field support
personnel also handle a large percentage of information calls from the
public.
ATTACHMENT I.--FIELD STAFFING--AS OF 5/16/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigator
District Office Office Investigators Support Support
Total Assts Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta......................... Atlanta.................... 75 35 4 10
Savannah................... 9 5 1 2
--------------------------------------------------
Atlanta Total............. ........................... 84 40 5 12
==================================================
Birmingham...................... Birmingham................. 67 25 4 9
Jackson.................... 26 14 2 6
Mobile..................... 2 1 0 .........
--------------------------------------------------
Birmingham Total.......... ........................... 95 40 6 15
==================================================
Charlotte....................... Charlotte.................. 47 13 1 6
Greensboro................. 8 5 0 1
Greenville................. 11 6 0 2
Norfolk.................... 15 5 1 3
Raleigh.................... 18 7 0 4
Richmond................... 17 6 0 2
--------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Total........... ........................... 116 42 2 18
==================================================
Chicago......................... Chicago.................... 85 36 4 11
Milwaukee.................. 35 11 1 5
Minneapolis................ 17 6 1 4
--------------------------------------------------
Chicago Total............. ........................... 137 53 6 20
==================================================
Dallas.......................... Dallas..................... 64 21 2 10
El Paso.................... 16 10 0 2
San Antonio................ 50 20 1 5
--------------------------------------------------
Dallas Total.............. ........................... 130 51 3 17
==================================================
Houston......................... Houston.................... 67 27 0 9
New Orleans................ 36 11 2 6
--------------------------------------------------
Houston Total............. ........................... 103 38 2 15
==================================================
Indianapolis.................... Cincinnati................. 14 7 ............ 2
Detroit.................... 40 16 1 5
Indianapolis............... 73 30 2 11
Louisville................. 19 8 1 4
--------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Total........ ........................... 146 61 4 22
==================================================
Los Angeles..................... Fresno..................... 3 1 0 .........
Honolulu................... 7 3 0 1
Las Vegas.................. 6 2 0 1
Los Angeles................ 56 15 1 8
San Diego.................. 12 5 0 2
--------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Total......... ........................... 84 26 1 12
==================================================
Memphis......................... Little Rock................ 24 12 0 3
Memphis.................... 46 13 0 8
Nashville.................. 21 11 1 3
--------------------------------------------------
Memphis Total............. ........................... 91 36 1 14
==================================================
Miami........................... Miami...................... 72 32 2 7
San Juan................... 9 4 1 2
Tampa...................... 28 16 1 5
--------------------------------------------------
Miami Total............... ........................... 109 52 4 14
==================================================
New York........................ Boston..................... 20 7 1 4
Buffalo.................... 10 7 0 2
New York................... 72 20 1 10
Newark..................... 14 6 1 4
--------------------------------------------------
New York Total............ ........................... 116 40 3 20
==================================================
Philadelphia.................... Baltimore.................. 44 13 2 7
Cleveland.................. 48 14 3 9
Philadelphia............... 64 21 0 8
Pittsburgh................. 23 12 2 4
--------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Total........ ........................... 179 60 7 28
==================================================
Phoenix......................... Albuquerque................ 20 8 2 4
Denver..................... 45 14 1 7
Phoenix.................... 58 21 1 9
--------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Total............. ........................... 123 43 4 20
==================================================
San Francisco................... Oakland.................... 3 2 1 1
San Francisco.............. 53 10 1 6
San Jose................... 10 4 1 2
Seattle.................... 40 12 2 6
--------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Total....... ........................... 106 28 5 15
==================================================
St. Louis....................... Kansas City................ 19 10 1 2
Oklahoma City.............. 20 11 1 3
St. Louis.................. 40 15 1 6
--------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Total........... ........................... 79 36 3 11
==================================================
Washington...................... Washington................. 32 4 4 8
==================================================
Field Total............... ........................... 1,730 650 60 201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many front-line staff do you have in each area office
to take initial complaints?
Answer. The chart in Attachment I provides an office-by-office
breakout of the numbers of investigators, ISAs and support staff, all
of whom may perform charge intake duties. The chart also reflects the
overall total staff (both enforcement and legal) for each office.
Question. Can you provide the Committee with a strategic plan that
includes benchmarks for reducing EEOC's backlog and improving morale?
(OCH)
Answer. A copy of our current strategic plan (2007-2012) is
attached. Many of the measures contained in that plan are to be
determined. A revised strategic plan with specific performance measures
is currently under development and will be voted on by the Commission
when completed. We will of course share our plan with you when it is
completed and approved.
With regard to employee morale, as part of our current strategic
plan we are improving our strategic management of human capital. The
EEOC has completed key steps toward developing and implementing a human
capital initiative. Planning for human capital needs is more important
than ever. Our human capital strategic plan guides our agency's
actions, including:
--Revising our performance management system for executives and
managers to link their performance with the agency's mission
and goals.
--Developing and sustaining leadership and supporting succession
planning through the agency's Management Development Institute,
an umbrella program addressing managerial needs of supervisors
and executives.
--Participating in the Office of Personnel Management's human capital
surveys and implementing regular internal surveys to identify
employee satisfaction with human capital management and
developing action plans based on an analysis of feedback.
--Identifying and quantifying mission critical competencies for key
positions, including investigators, attorneys and mediators,
developing multi-year training plans to address any
organizational gaps.
--Closing gaps through individual development plans, mentoring,
training, rotational assignments and other staff development
initiatives.
--Aggressively recruiting, developing and retaining high-quality
talent.
The EEOC's program to reinvigorate our systemic discrimination
program highlights the need to fine tune our human capital approaches.
To succeed, the agency must enhance incentives for identifying,
investigating, and litigating systemic cases, provide additional
opportunities for training and the development of expertise related to
systemic discrimination, and improve technology skills. Our systemic
initiative will facilitate development of more refined approaches to
enforcing the law. Our goal is to ensure that employees have the right
skills, talents, and abilities to succeed in implementing this program.
eeoc oversight of eeo offices
Question. How does EEOC evaluate each equal employment office?
Answer. The standards by which EEOC evaluates the sufficiency of
federal agency Title VII and Rehabilitation Act programs are set forth
in EEO Management Directive 715, which became effective in 2003. MD-715
divides the essential elements of model agency EEO programs into six
broad categories: (1) demonstrated commitment from agency leadership;
(2) integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission; (3)
management and program accountability; (4) proactive prevention of
unlawful discrimination; (5) efficiency; and (6) responsiveness and
legal compliance.
Pursuant to MD-715, agencies are required to conduct periodic self-
assessments of their Title VII and Rehabilitation Act programs against
the six model elements enumerated above. Agencies are required to
report on a yearly basis to EEOC their progress toward establishing and
maintaining a model workplace. That report includes the identification
of any program deficiencies and the identification of any barriers to
equal employment an agency has discovered along with plans to eliminate
any such barriers. Agencies also are required to submit to EEOC a
series of data tables showing snapshots of their agency workforce by
race, national origin, sex and targeted disability. EEOC evaluates each
agency's submission and provides written feedback and analysis on each
agency's progress toward establishing and maintaining a model EEO
workplace and identifies areas in which each agency's program needs
improvement.
In addition to the written evaluations based upon agencies' MD-715
reports, EEOC conducts a limited number of in-depth, program
evaluations each year.
Question. How often are evaluations conducted?
Answer. Evaluations based upon agencies' MD-715 reports are
conducted each year. EEOC also conducts more in-depth evaluations of
agency EEO programs. EEOC conducted 3 such evaluations in fiscal year
2004; 5 in fiscal year 2005; and 4 in fiscal year 2006. We plan to
conduct 3 to 4 evaluations in fiscal year 2007.
Question. What can a federal employee do if he or she feels that
the agency EEO office is not investigating the case properly?
Answer. There are several options available to a federal employee
who feels that his or her complaint is not being properly processed.
These options include raising these concerns with: (1) the agency
officials responsible for conducting the investigation; (2) an EEOC
Administrative Judge; and (3) the EEOC on appeal.
Complaints concerning the processing of complaints, including how
complaints are investigated, are addressed in the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Management Directive (MD) 110.
Specifically, MD-110 Chapter 5 Section IV.D entitled ``Allegations of
Dissatisfaction Regarding the Processing of Pending Complaints,''
provides that if a complainant is dissatisfied with the processing of
his/her pending complaint, whether or not it alleges prohibited
discrimination as a basis for dissatisfaction, s/he should be referred
to the agency official responsible for the quality of complaints
processing.
Agency officials should earnestly attempt to resolve
dissatisfaction with the complaints process as early and expeditiously
as possible. Further, the agency official responsible for the quality
of complaints processing must add a record of the complainant's
concerns and any actions the agency took to resolve the concerns to the
complaint file maintained on the underlying complaint. If no action was
taken, the file must contain an explanation of the agency's reason(s)
for not taking any action.
In cases where the complainant's concerns have not been resolved
informally with the agency, the complainant may present those concerns
to the EEOC at either of the following stages of processing: (a) Where
the complainant has requested a hearing, to the EEOC Administrative
Judge when the complaint is under the jurisdiction of the
Administrative Judge; or (b) Where the complainant has not requested a
hearing, to the EEOC Office of Federal Operations (OFO) on appeal.
Where the Administrative Judge or OFO finds that an agency has
improperly processed the original complaint and that such improper
processing has had a material effect on the processing of the original
complaint, the Administrative Judge has the authority to supplement the
record at the hearing stage, and/or impose sanctions on the agency as
s/he deems appropriate.
In some instances, if there appears to a particularly egregious or
systemic issue with a particular agency, which may have been identified
by multiple complaints received through complainant correspondence,
and/or through our independent review of their policies, practices, and
procedures as revealed by their annual 462 and MD-715 reports, the EEOC
may select the agency for a Program Evaluation. This evaluation
involves an intensive review of the agency's EEO practices after which
we prepare a report documenting our findings on the factors that we
determine are having a significant impact on the agency's program
efficiency as well as EEOC's recommendations on how the agency should
address these findings. Similarly, on occasion, if a complaint presents
a conflict of interest, or if high-level agency officials are involved,
the EEOC's Special Services Staff in its Office of Federal Operations
may undertake an investigation of a complaint if requested by the
agency where the discrimination allegedly occurred.
Finally, federal employees or applicants who are not satisfied with
the outcome of the administrative process may elect to file a civil
action in an appropriate United States District Court.
brac in maryland
Question. Maryland over the next five years will be undergoing
tremendous growth due to BRAC. Did EEOC consider this when they decided
to downgrade the Baltimore office?
Answer. EEOC was aware of the BRAC recommendations at the time that
the repositioning plan was developed. EEOC regularly monitors its
workload and staffing data, both at the national and at the local
office levels, to identify any shifts or trends in charge receipts and
resolutions from projected expectations. This monitoring allows us to
develop needed adjustments to workload through the inter-district
transfer of charges in the short term and, subject to budgetary
constraints, by adjusting office staffing levels for the long-term.
With respect to the Baltimore office, we have been keeping their front-
line staff at close to an optimal level, which should allow them to
take on additional work resulting from base build-ups in Maryland. In
January 2006, when we implemented field repositioning, there were 11
investigators in the Baltimore District Office. Today, we have 12
investigators in the Baltimore Field Office. The redesignation of the
Baltimore office as a result of repositioning did not result in fewer
frontline positions.
Question. How will EEOC handle this influx of 55,000 new employees
to Maryland?
Answer. See response to question 1 above.
Question. What is EEOC doing right now to plan for this increased
caseload?
Answer. See response to question 1 above.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. What percentage of the EEOC cases that have been resolved
or closed in the last three years originated with the state and local
agencies?
Answer. Over the last three years, the state and local agencies
(FEPAs) have resolved approximately 40 percent of the total combined
resolutions of dual-filed charges with EEOC and the FEPAs.
Specifically, the FEPA percentage of overall dual-filed charge
resolutions during this period was: 40 percent in fiscal year 2004,
41.3 percent in fiscal year 2005 and 40.5 percent in fiscal year 2006.
Question. What percentage of callers to the national call center's
800 number are referred to state and local offices?
Answer. Slightly less than 2 percent of NCC calls are referred to
FEPAs. For example, of the 222,350 calls handled by customer service
representatives during the 7-month period between October 2006 to April
2007, 4,162 (1.9 percent) were referred to FEPAs.
Question. Please provide a justification for the agency proposal to
place over 60 percent of the cuts proposed by the Administration on the
state and local agencies that have the largest share of the caseload.
Answer. For fiscal year 2008, the Administration has proposed a
$997,000 reduction from the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. From the
enacted 2007 level, the State and local agencies were apportioned $30
million in 2007 and will receive $28 million (a budget reduction of
less than 7 percent) under the Administration budget before Congress.
The budget projections show the EEOC inventory to rise to 67,000
charges, while the FEPA charge inventory has been dropping and will
flatten out at around 50,000 charges. The budget proposal seeks to
provide more funds to EEOC to avoid a worsening EEOC inventory rise.
The cut in FEPA funds should not change the projected FEPA inventory.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
Question. How many lawsuits and complaints against employers over
English language workplace policies has the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed so far this year? How many lawsuits
and complaints did the Commission file in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002,
and 2001?
Answer.
Charges
In the period of fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2006, EEOC has
received charges alleging discrimination on the issue of English-only
policies as follows:
CHARGE RECEIPTS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receipts........................................................ 154 237 173 184 141 125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On average, this represents an average of 169 charge receipts per
year, which equals less than 0.2 percent of receipts (using an average
of 75,000), a small fraction of our total receipts. Additionally, we
resolved the following number of charges during this same timeframe:
CHARGE RESOLUTIONS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolutions..................................................... 182 218 190 165 189 111
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of these resolutions, EEOC found reasonable cause to believe
discrimination occurred in approximately 53 charges, on average, per
fiscal year. The specific numbers, by fiscal year, are as follows:
CAUSE RESOLUTIONS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause Resolutions............................................... 59 62 39 47 83 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits
EEOC has filed one case this fiscal year involving English-only
policies. In prior fiscal years, EEOC has filed the following cases
involving this issue:
LITIGATION FILINGS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filings......................................................... 3 2 2 2 4 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much money has the EEOC spent to prosecute lawsuits
and file complaints against employers over English language workplace
policies so far this year (including staff costs, court fees, etc.)?
How much did the Commission spend on lawsuits and complaints in such
cases in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001?
Answer.
Charges
Of the 169 charge receipts that EEOC receives on average each year,
the cost of processing these charges is difficult to quantify. However,
basing our calculations on this six-year average for receipts, these
charges represent the annual workload of approximately 1\1/2\
investigators. Computing out the annual salary, benefits and overhead
for an investigator, and calculating their time spent on English-only
charges, the cost would be approximately $250,000.
Lawsuits
The table below provides cost to EEOC for litigating English-only
cases.
LITIGATION COST FOR ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Cost................................................ $6,515.00 $35,394.00 $38,038.00 $7,103.00 $130,804.00 $105,786.00 $54,793.00
Litigation Cost.............................................. $123,026.78 $71,432.00 $24,435.00 $87,062.00 $14,098.63 $399.00 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. $129,542.78 $106,826.00 $62,473.39 $94,165.69 $144,902.63 $106,185.00 $54,793.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many small-to-medium sized businesses (under 100
employees) has the EEOC filed complaints or lawsuits against over
English language workplace policies this year? How many in 2006, 2005,
2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001? How many big businesses (100 or more)? How
many of each category in Tennessee?
Answer.
Charges
Of the cause findings issued each year during the past six years,
the number of those that were issued by the size of the employer is as
follows:
CAUSE RESOLUTIONS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE BY EMPLOYER SIZE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cause Resolutions......................................... 59 62 39 47 83 25
15-100 Employees................................................ 16 14 14 21 19 11
101-500 Employees............................................... 20 27 13 8 20 5
501+ Employees.................................................. 23 19 11 14 39 6
No. of Employees Unknown........................................ ...... 2 1 4 5 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this six-year period, there were only three cause findings
issued to employers in the State of Tennessee. All of these findings
were issued in a single fiscal year, fiscal year 2001, and were evenly
split between the three size categories above.
Lawsuits
EEOC has not filed any cases this fiscal year against small
employers involving this issue. For prior fiscal years, we have filed
the following:
LITIGATION FILINGS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE AGAINST EMPLOYERS WITH 100 OR FEWER EMPLOYEES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filings......................................................... ...... 2 1 ...... 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEOC has filed one case this year against a large employer. In the
past, we have filed the following:
LITIGATION FILINGS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE AGAINST EMPLOYERS WITH MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filings......................................................... 3 ...... 1 2 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEOC has filed no cases against employers in Tennessee involving
this issue for the period October 1, 2000 to the present.
Question. How many lawsuits and complaints arising over English
language workplace policies has the EEOC settled, won, and lost this
year? How many in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001?
Answer.
Charges
The number of English-only policy resolutions involving settlements
include successful conciliations--a component of the cause finding--as
well as settlements. The annual tallies follow:
SETTLEMENTS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successful Conciliations........................................ 23 22 7 16 25 6
Settlements..................................................... 13 28 26 20 14 18
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 36 50 33 36 39 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits
EEOC has resolved three cases this fiscal year; all were settled by
consent decree. In prior years, we resolved the following:
LITIGATION RESOLUTIONS WITH ENGLISH-ONLY ISSUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent Decree.................................................. 4 1 ...... 1 1 3
Settlement Agreement............................................ ...... 1 1 ...... ...... ......
Favorable Court Order........................................... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 ......
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 4 2 1 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Kennedy
Question. I understand that EEOC has undertaken a commitment to
revitalize systemic litigation. I applaud this effort. However, in
light of your significant and growing case backlog and the significant
staff reductions the agency has undergone in recent years, do you
believe that the Commission has the resources to implement this renewed
commitment? What other areas will the Commission have to compromise in
this effort?
Answer. We believe that in order to combat systemic discrimination
effectively, the Commission must promote a culture that encourages
staff to look for, recognize, and investigate systemic discrimination.
We already have a core group of investigators, attorneys and other
enforcement staff who have a proven record in this area including many
significant settlements and conciliations over the years, and in some
instances, major systemic litigation. We are enhancing this core group
by adding positions for lead systemic investigators, systemic paralegal
specialists, and labor economists to support this effort. In addition,
we are devoting resources to systemic training programs to develop and
enhance the expertise of existing investigators, attorneys and support
staff.
We are able to leverage our existing resources by encouraging
districts to partner with one another and form a national systemic
practice along the lines of a national law firm model. This strategy
allows the Commission to address systemic discrimination effectively
nationwide while at the same time sharing and building expertise in all
of our offices.
We budgeted $213,000 in fiscal year 2006 non-staff funds for
information technology support for this activity. In fiscal year 2007,
we have budgeted $150,000 for non-staff costs in the field for this
activity. The funds were realized when planned new hires did not enter
on duty within the new hire timeline. These funds will be used to hire
expert and support services for manipulating systemic data, train staff
in systemic analysis, and pay for travel expenses for staff to meet on
systemic cases that involve multiple offices.
Specifically, in our budget request, we project a slight decrease
in lawsuit filings compared to previous years, due to a readjustment of
our docket to include more large class cases. In fiscal year 2006, we
filed 371 suits, and in fiscal year 2008 we estimate filing 340 suits.
We anticipate a shift in the size and complexity of cases in our docket
as the Commission's new Systemic Program produces some larger cases for
enforcement litigation by fiscal year 2008. Our campaign to
reinvigorate the systemic program may redirect some resources from
smaller, individual cases. The Commission understands this potential
trade-off and believes that it is worthwhile. When done correctly,
systemic cases can transform whole industries or geographic areas--not
just the named defendants. They are a way of leveraging the agency's
limited resources to have the widest possible reach. Thus, we believe
the Commission has the resources to implement its renewed commitment to
systemic litigation, without compromising its overall enforcement
program.
Question. The National Employment Lawyers Association recently
released a report containing disturbing findings from a survey that the
Association conducted about EEOC operations. I was particularly
troubled by the report's discussion of the problems that members of the
public have experienced with intake investigations. Potential claimants
are receiving erroneous advice--e.g., that they cannot file a claim if
they still have their job, or that they cannot name more than one
grounds of discrimination in their charge--and this bad advice has
compromised their rights. In addition, the agency's recent
reorganization significantly reduced the number of frontline staff,
particularly intake investigators. You testified at the hearing that
EEOC's frontline investigators receive only one week of specialized
training. I know that the agency's employees are dedicated and
hardworking, but it appears that they do not have the capacity or the
training to perform their jobs effectively. What steps can the agency
take to increase the quality of frontline services it provides? Does
the agency need to implement additional training programs? Do you need
to hire more frontline investigative staff? How can the quality of
services be improved without additional resources above and beyond the
President's budget request?
Answer. First, I would like to note that when I became Chair in
September 2006, I met with NELA representatives almost immediately,
with the goal of beginning a close partnership with them in my new
role. Since last September, I have maintained an on-going dialogue with
NELA on many matters and spent two days with NELA representatives at
the ABA off-the-record meeting in January of this year. As NELA itself
states in the introduction to its report:
``The Chair and the Commissioners have taken affirmative steps in
seeking NELA's input and feedback regarding EEOC operations. Indeed,
open dialogue with and encouragement from Chair Earp, Vice Chair
Silverman, and Commissioners Griffin and Ishimaru were a catalyst for
NELA conducting the survey which is the subject of this report.''
Second, I would like to reassure the Committee that the instances
recounted in NELA's report are not the usual conduct of business at
EEOC. The survey was sent to 2,500 NELA members with the request that
they report problems with EEOC rejecting charges. Of those 2,500, 343,
or 13.7 percent responded. A total of 77, or 3 percent of the members
surveyed reported drafting a ``discrimination charge . . . that was not
accepted for filing . . . .'' NELA's survey covered approximately two
and a quarter calendar years; although our numbers follow fiscal years,
instead of calendar years, they provide context to consider the numbers
of complaints that NELA received. During fiscal year 2004-fiscal year
2006, EEOC received more than a half million inquiries (558,177) and
took in over a quarter of a million charges (230,628). In light of this
enormous workload, the instances reported are indeed a small number.
I want to emphasize that I take NELA's concerns very seriously. As
a result of discussions with them on intake issues, long before we
received the survey results, we began setting up an e-mail address to
enable NELA members to inform us in real time of concerns they have
with any particular intake session. We notified NELA informally of this
e-mail address in February and in April formally notified them in a
letter which they can distribute to their members. We intend to use the
information provided by NELA members to remedy any situation where an
individual who wishes to file a charge has encountered obstacles, as
well as to train and counsel staff on correct intake procedures, when
necessary. As we receive messages in this mailbox, we will be working
with the appropriate office to resolve the situation promptly, ensure
that charging party rights are preserved and that our staff deals
properly with anyone who initiates intake activity.
We have also found that face-to-face meetings with stakeholders
such as NELA are extremely helpful to both sides. For example, when
NELA representatives in Atlanta informed us in 2005 of problems they
encountered with filing charges in the Atlanta District Office, our
Atlanta District Director met with them personally to resolve those
issues. She then set up quarterly meetings with regional NELA
representatives, which are on-going to this day. We understand that
these meetings are well received on both sides and we have encouraged
our other district directors across the country to meet regularly with
their regional NELA representatives.
Of course, there are reasonable differences that our staff have had
from time to time with charges drafted by private attorneys and some
charges are reworked. For example, we routinely request that charges
not include the specific disability on the face of the charge. The
Americans with Disabilities Act limits the extent to which employers
can disclose the medical information of employees. Charges are served
on employers and may go through many hands and be seen by many people
at the company. We would not want our charge process to produce results
inconsistent with the statute. Another example is the honest mistake
that some private attorneys make by naming witnesses to the alleged
discrimination on the face of the charge. If such charges were taken
``as-is'' and served on the employer, those witnesses could easily
become targets for retaliation. Consequently, our staff request that
the names of witnesses be removed from the charge and provided
separately to investigators.
Finally, you should know that EEOC has been working on maintaining
the overall high quality of our intake process for several years, in
part through Technical Assistance reviews that our headquarters staff
conduct of our field offices. In 2005, we set up an Intake Workgroup,
composed of deputy district directors and district enforcement
managers, which drafted a proposed uniform intake questionnaire to
assist the district offices with their intake procedures. We have also
been working on redirecting staff resources to the intake function to
allow better development of the allegations included in charges as well
as the evidence necessary to support those allegations. We anticipate
additional training for our intake staff sometime in the near future.
This would augment the initial one-week classroom training provided to
new investigators that is supplemented with local training conducted in
each office, on-the- job training, and later advanced classroom
training.
We have already given NELA's report to our Technical Assistance
teams for their review and analysis of the specific problems noted in
the survey. We will use their recommendations to improve our processes
as necessary and reduce any such occurrences in the future.
Question. I am familiar with the findings of the Inspector
General's report on the ineffectiveness of the Commission's call center
pilot project. The center has been plagued with operational problems
and is not serving the public effectively. Even if improvements have
been made, it is clearly time to reexamine this problematic experiment.
You have mentioned that there would be increased expense if this
function were brought in-house, but your estimate of the cost seems
extremely high. Can you provide for me the basis of your calculations
about the cost of bringing the call center in-house? Wouldn't the
Commission's client populations be better served by working with
experienced EEOC employees when they contact the agency?
Answer. In September 2006, EEOC asked the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct an assessment of the
requirements to establish an in-house contact center and to provide an
independent estimate of the costs. NAPA issued a report in January 2007
that estimated that it would cost an initial $2.3 million to move the
National Contact Center (NCC) in-house and annual ongoing costs of $5.5
million; therefore, the first year of operating an in-house contact
center would be $7.8 million. By comparison, annual on-going costs for
the contractor-run center costs about $2.5 million. In developing their
cost estimates, NAPA used comparable staffing, processes, technology,
and equipment as that used by the NCC. The NAPA estimates took into
account that the software application, knowledge base, and training
materials used by the NCC are the property of EEOC under the terms of
the contract and would not have to be purchased. According to the NAPA
report, which is available at, ``the staffing estimates are based upon
a representative month and the metrics currently in place to meet
service requirements including speed of answer and qualitative
measures.'' The NAPA estimates also presumed the rental of a stand-
alone facility located in a labor market designated as ``rest of USA.''
It is important to note that the customer service representatives
(CSRs) who answer the phones for EEOC are dedicated to the EEOC
contract, are well-trained to represent EEOC and allow us to present a
consistent face to the public for 12 hours each work day. This is an
important service to our client population--to be accessible, at
convenient hours, and providing accurate information or referrals. A
report issued by the Claes Fornell International (CFI) Group in May
2006 indicated the overall Customer Satisfaction Score for the EEOC
contact center was 77, which is six points higher than the average for
Federal Government contact centers. This report is accessible on the
EEOC external website at the following URL: http://www.eeoc.gov/
abouteeoc/oig/reports/ncc/cs_survey.html. In addition, we receive very
few complaints from our field offices regarding the services provided
by the contact center. The volume of calls handled by the CSRs, more
than 38,000 a month (with an average wait time of 30 seconds), could
not be handled using existing experienced EEOC employees and
technology.
A March 2003 survey indicated that 61 percent of the calls to our
public numbers in the field were for reasons other than potential
charge filing and could easily be answered by clerical level employees.
These figures still hold true today in that more than 60 percent of the
calls coming to the NCC are for reasons other than filing a charge.
Callers who have questions about filing a charge are pre-screened for
coverage and mailed an intake questionnaire. Contact center employees
have been trained to handle the variety of calls coming in to EEOC and
our EEOC monitors believe they are doing a very good job of collecting
data, answering questions, and as several field supervisors noted
recently, ``providing a portal to EEOC.'' The training for customer
service representatives does not end after the initial two weeks
(including six days devoted to EEOC content) and also includes on-going
monitoring and refresher training at least four times each month. The
CSR's job is to be quickly accessible, to quickly determine the reason
for the call, and to provide the appropriate level of assistance. Do
they use scripts to do this? Yes, they do, but they are trained to ask
appropriate questions to determine which scripts to use and when. These
same scripts have been shared with all field offices at the request of
field supervisors. CSRs hold a dialogue with the caller and because
they are constantly monitored, we are able to follow up on any
incomplete or incorrect information.
In order to set up an EEOC-operated contact center, we will have to
make a significant investment in technology and additional resources to
provide the same level of service the public is receiving from the
contract call center. When we used only EEOC employees answering the
phone, we found we could not adequately do the job without using some
21st century technology and strategies. Our volume of calls, currently
over 60,000 per month to the NCC alone, is clear evidence that we need
to take advantage of industry best practices to meet our customer
service needs. It is better for our customers that we are making the
best use of our limited budgetary resources to operate a contract call
center, because in this way:
--the caller can be certain of reaching a CSR 12 hours-a-day and only
having to wait less than a minute on average to do so;
--the caller can be assured of getting consistent information,
consistent treatment, and consistent service, regardless of
whether he or she resides in the country, or what language he
or she speaks; and
--our investigators are able to devote their time to deal with
potential charges and investigations rather than handling phone
duty of general inquiries, which currently number 60,000 per
month.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Mikulski. We'll look forward to further
conversations with you as we move ahead. This subcommittee will
stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Thursday, May 3, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
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 2008 budget request for programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the National Employment Lawyers Association
executive summary
In March of this year, the National Employment Lawyers Association
\1\ (NELA) prepared and distributed to its membership a brief on-line
survey to gain a better and more current understanding of (1) the
frequency with which charging parties and/or their attorneys encounter
refusals by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to
accept charges; and (2) the extent to which charging parties and/or
their attorneys experience other problems with charge filing at the
EEOC (see Appendix A attached to the full report). NELA spearheaded the
survey in response to comments it regularly receives from NELA members
and local NELA affiliate members about the EEOC's charge filing process
as well as by our discussions with the leadership of the EEOC. Both the
EEOC and the Congress also have recently expressed concerns about the
need for charging parties to have effective access to the Commission's
compliance procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) advocates
for employee rights and workplace fairness while promoting the highest
standards of professionalism, ethics and judicial integrity. NELA was
founded in 1985 to provide assistance and support to lawyers in
protecting the rights of employees against the greater resources of
their employers and the defense bar. NELA is the country's largest
professional organization that is comprised exclusively of lawyers who
represent individual employees in cases involving employment
discrimination, wrongful termination, employee benefits, and other
employment-related matters. NELA and its 67 state and local affiliates
have more than 3,000 members nationwide.
As a group, NELA members have represented thousands of individuals
seeking equal employment opportunities. NELA is one of a limited number
of organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of all employees
who rely on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and
the courts for protection against illegal workplace discrimination.
NELA's members serve the same constituency as the Commission, namely,
employees who have been and are being subjected to invidious race,
color, national origin, gender, religious, age, and disability
discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. NELA's members interface with the EEOC on a daily
basis. They are involved with the Commission's compliance procedures,
its investigation practices, and its disposition of cases. That
involvement is nationwide and reaches to all of EEOC's regional and
district offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The survey sought to elicit information about what happens when a
charge is presented to the Commission--whether charging parties
encounter problems, the types of problems they experience, and the
frequency and timing of such problems. The survey covers the period
from January 1, 2005 to April 2, 2007; questions were categorized by
calendar year. The survey was conducted from March 16, 2007 through
April 2, 2007. NELA received 343 unique responses to the survey, for a
total response rate of 14 percent. The responses represent the
experiences of plaintiff employment lawyers (and their clients) from 30
states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico who practice before
EEOC offices in every region, including 15 district, 9 field, 12 area
and 11 local offices. (A list of the EEOC offices referenced by survey
respondents is contained in Appendix B of the full report.)
The cumulative responses reveal an agency that is resistant to the
filing of employment discrimination charges. Of the survey respondents,
nearly one-quarter (23 percent) indicated that they had drafted charges
for clients that had not been accepted for filing by the EEOC during
the twenty-seven month period covered by the survey.\2\ In response to
the broader question, ``[H]ave you had other problems with the EEOC in
the processing of charges or intake questionnaires (e.g., resistance by
EEOC office identified above to accepting filing as prepared by you,
substantial modification by EEOC of what you prepared, etc.)?''--the
``yes'' response rate was even higher.\3\ Thirty-six percent (36
percent) of respondents reported that they had encountered such
problems at some time since January 1, 2005. Moreover, more than a
quarter of the respondents who had experienced such problems did so
more than once in calendar years 2005 (26 percent) and 2006 (28
percent).\4\ In 2005, 12 percent, and in 2006, 13 percent, of them had
encountered such problems three or more times in the year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Question 3, Appendix A.
\3\ See Question 11, Appendix A.
\4\ See Questions 12 and 13, Appendix A.
\5\ Supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments of survey respondents illuminate the pervasiveness of
the problems that charging parties and plaintiff's attorneys have with
the EEOC's intake, charge filing and investigation processes. The
respondents cite several recurrent problems with EEOC charge intake as
well as with EEOC investigations after charges are filed (see pages 6-
13 of the full report).
These findings, as alarming as they are, do not come as a surprise
to anyone who is familiar with the EEOC. They are, in substantial part,
symptomatic and the consequence of an inadequate budget which has
resulted in an understaffed agency burdened with a massive flow of
charges and an ever growing backlog. Indeed, the Commission has
struggled to meet the mounting pressures of this burden and has tried
to adjust to the realities of its budget through a major reorganization
and reallocation of staff.
When the chaff is separated from the wheat, however, the key fact
that emerges is that the EEOC has for many years only been able to
budget a small amount of its funding to enforcement and virtually
nothing to training personnel. This renders the Commission ill-equipped
to achieve its mission, produces never-ending delays, prevents even
minimal training of staff, and breeds inordinate pressures not to add
to a burgeoning backlog by junking potential and actual cases at every
step of the administrative process. More specifically, it produces an
inherent resistance to the filing of charges by compliance staff,
shortchanges investigations (if and when they take place), and
increases an administrative ``washing of hands'' of cases through the
convenience of boilerplate Notices of Right to Sue that include nothing
but a mere check-off box for ``insubstantial evidence to determine''
discrimination.
In enacting various anti-discrimination laws, Congress has signaled
that addressing and eliminating invidious discriminatory employment
practices is one of the nation's highest priorities. Thus, it is
incumbent upon Congress to ensure that the Commission--the federal
agency that it has mandated to enforce these laws--receives the
necessary funding to rectify the untenable morass described in the
report. If the EEOC is to overcome the dire consequences of past budget
reductions, then funding well beyond the current levels must be made
available.
At the same time, the EEOC also must be held accountable to
Congress and the public it serves. Thus, oversight and assessment
mechanisms must be put into place to assure that additional resources
are directed toward viable and meaningful enforcement of the EEOC's
mandates (see page 15 of the full report). The findings cited in NELA's
survey lend credence to the problems faced by the EEOC and those
Americans the agency is mandated to protect from unlawful employment
discrimination. For the EEOC to fulfill its mission as the federal
agency most responsible for the enforcement of the nation's equal
employment opportunity laws, these problems must, at a minimum, be
addressed with more resources targeted at improving basic enforcement
functions.
For more information, contact Donna R. Lenhoff, Legislative &
Public Policy Director, National Employment Lawyers Association, 1090
Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 (Tel: 202-898-2880;
E-mail: [email protected]).
workers' rights in jeopardy: eeoc's enforcement of equal employment
opportunity laws impeded by inadequate funding
a report by the national employment lawyers association--april 27, 2007
Introduction
The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) advocates for
employee rights and workplace fairness while promoting the highest
standards of professionalism, ethics and judicial integrity. NELA was
founded in 1985 to provide assistance and support to lawyers in
protecting the rights of employees against the greater resources of
their employers and the defense bar. NELA is the country's largest
professional organization that is comprised exclusively of lawyers who
represent individual employees in cases involving employment
discrimination, wrongful termination, employee benefits, and other
employment-related matters. NELA and its 67 state and local affiliates
have more than 3,000 members nationwide.
As a group, NELA members have represented thousands of individuals
seeking equal employment opportunities. NELA is one of a limited number
of organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of all employees
who rely on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and
the courts for protection against illegal workplace discrimination.
NELA's members serve the same constituency as the Commission, namely,
employees who have been and are being subjected to invidious race,
color, national origin, gender, religious, age, and disability
discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. NELA's members interface with the EEOC on a daily
basis. They are involved with the Commission's compliance procedures,
its investigation practices, and its disposition of cases. That
involvement is nationwide and reaches to all of EEOC's regional and
district offices.
NELA members and the staff of the EEOC share the common goal of
ensuring that the nation's equal employment opportunity laws are
enforced as mandated by Congress. Indeed, several current and past EEOC
staff are or have been members of NELA, including former Commissioners
as well as senior attorneys in the Office of General Counsel and
Regional Offices. These EEOC alumnae are passionate about their years
at EEOC. They remain committed to helping the EEOC to advance its
mission, to establish and develop a vibrant body of employment law, to
address discrimination where it has operated and is continuing to be
practiced, and to secure remedies for unlawful employment practices. In
short, NELA and its members are uniquely positioned to comment upon
EEOC's compliance efforts and the extent to which the Commission meets
its mission, exercises its responsibilities, and provides relief to
individuals who are discriminated against in the workplace.
Effective, attentive and responsive enforcement procedures hold out
the hope for resolution and relief for victims of workplace
discrimination. By the same token, ineffective, inattentive and
irresponsible administrative processing by EEOC precludes and/or
directly impacts the nature and scope of the relief charging parties--
even those represented by attorneys--can obtain during the
administrative process. Furthermore, because utilization of the
Commission's administrative procedures is a mandatory gateway to
private enforcement of Title VII and defines the scope of any ensuing
litigation, NELA's members and their clients have a vital stake in
ensuring charging party accessibility to the EEOC and effective
compliance efforts.
It is essential to underscore that EEOC leaders, especially its
current Chair, have recognized this commonality between EEOC's
responsibilities and the interests and experiences of NELA's members.
They are acutely aware that working in partnership with NELA, as well
as other stakeholders, is key to fulfilling the EEOC's mission of
enforcing the nation's equal employment opportunity laws. The Chair and
the Commissioners have taken affirmative steps in seeking NELA's input
and feedback regarding EEOC operations. Indeed, open dialogue with and
encouragement from Chair Earp, Vice Chair Silverman, and Commissioners
Griffin and Ishimaru were a catalyst for NELA conducting the survey
which is the subject of this report. The same is true with respect to a
planned project that NELA hopes to implement in the near future
regarding EEOC's National Contact Center.
The Survey and Methodology
In March of this year, NELA prepared and distributed to its
membership a brief on-line survey, a copy of which is attached as
Appendix A. The purpose of the survey was to gain a better and more
current understanding of: (1) the frequency with which charging parties
and/or their attorneys encounter refusals by the EEOC to accept
charges; and (2) the extent to which charging parties and/or their
attorneys experience other problems with charge filing at the EEOC.
NELA spearheaded the survey in response to comments it regularly
receives from NELA members and local affiliate members about the EEOC's
charge filing process as well as by our discussions with EEOC
leadership. In addition, both the EEOC and the Congress have recently
expressed concerns about the need for charging parties to have
effective access to the Commission's compliance procedures.
The survey sought to elicit information about what happens when a
charge is presented to the Commission--whether charging parties
encounter problems, the types of problems they experience, and the
frequency and timing of such problems. The survey covers the period
from January 1, 2005 to April 2, 2007; questions were categorized by
calendar year.
Instructions and a link to the on-line survey were sent by
electronic mail to NELA members. In addition, NELA's sixty-seven state
and local affiliate leaders were encouraged to forward the survey link
to their membership (which include members who are not members of the
national organization). The survey was conducted from March 16, 2007
(the date it was first distributed) through April 2, 2007 (the date the
survey was closed). NELA received 343 unique responses to the survey,
for a total response rate of 14 percent.
The responses represent the experiences of plaintiff employment
lawyers (and their clients) from 30 states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico. The respondents practice before EEOC offices in every
region, including 15 district, 9 field, 12 area and 11 local offices.
(A list of the EEOC offices referenced by respondents is contained in
Appendix B.)
The Findings
The responses reveal an agency that is resistant to the filing of
employment discrimination charges. Of the survey respondents, nearly
one-quarter (23 percent) indicated that they had drafted charges for
clients that had not been accepted for filing by the EEOC during the
twenty-seven month period covered by the survey.\6\ In response to the
broader question, ``[H]ave you had other problems with the EEOC in the
processing of charges or intake questionnaires (e.g., resistance by
EEOC office identified above to accepting filing as prepared by you,
substantial modification by EEOC of what you prepared, etc.)?''--the
``yes'' response rate was even higher.\7\ Thirty-six percent (36
percent) of respondents reported that they had encountered some such
problems at some time since January 1, 2005. Moreover, more than a
quarter of the respondents who had experienced such problems did so
more than once in calendar years 2005 (26 percent) and 2006 (28
percent).\8\ In 2005, 12 percent, and in 2006, 13 percent, of them had
encountered such problems three or more times in the year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Question 3, Appendix A.
\7\ See Question 11, Appendix A.
\8\ See Questions 12 and 13, Appendix A.
\9\ Supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These experiences were not specific to just one or two of EEOC's
local offices, but involved, as mentioned above, 47 offices nationwide.
These 47 EEOC offices are not, however, necessarily any worse than EEOC
offices not reflected in the survey. On the other hand, the offices not
on the list (Appendix B) are not necessarily any better than those that
are on the list. Indeed, NELA has no reason to believe that these 47
EEOC offices are either better or worse than the EEOC offices that were
not mentioned by survey respondents.
The comments of those responding to the survey, which are compiled
in Appendix C, illuminate the pervasiveness of the problems that
charging parties and plaintiff's attorneys have with the EEOC's intake,
charge filing and investigation processes. As reflected below, the
comments indicate several recurrent problems with EEOC charge intake as
well as with EEOC investigations after charges are filed. This is not
to suggest, however, that all is bad at the EEOC; in fact, some
respondents recognized and complimented particular offices or
personnel.
Problems with Charge Intake
While NELA attorneys, more often than not, succeed in filing
charges for their clients, they report that these same clients in many
instances were previously turned away by EEOC's intake personnel based
on the same alleged incidents of discrimination. For example:
--Our clients who come to [us] after going to the EEOC have numerous
horror stories about being told they couldn't file because they
still had their job, didn't have a case, etc.----Comment 16
(Atlanta)
--While I have not had problems with the EEOC accepting my charges or
questionnaires, I have had many potential clients report that
the EEOC would not accept their charges--at least 4 in the past
two months. I cannot say how many have reported this since
January 2005, but the numbers seem to be increasing of late. In
addition, the EEOC does not want any information before the 180
day filing period, whether or not this information is relevant
to the discrimination claims in the charge.----Comment 118
(Atlanta)
--Because of previous problems with the EEOC I always draft the
charges and have them hand delivered and stamped. I stopped
sending my clients in to file on their own behalf because the
EEOC . . . tell[s] clients they don't have a case even though I
have already determined that they do.----Comment 45 (Chicago)
--[T]he problem seems to be mainly with people who attempt to file
charges without an attorney. I get many, many calls from people
who say that the EEOC told them that they do not have a case
when in fact they do have one, or would have if they had filed
the charge when they contacted EEOC. EEOC gave them bad legal
advice which caused them not to file when they should have, and
their rights were compromised.----Comment 86 (Dallas)
--I don't have problems . . . It is the unrepresented people who have
problems. For instance, I have had people come to see me who
have been told by the intake folks that they don't have a case
and don't know they can insist on filing a charge. I draft and
file the charge and there is no problem. I really worry about
the folks who don't have a lawyer, not the ones who do!!----
Comment 175 (St. Louis)
--[A]ggrieved individuals go [to the EEOC and] are often told that
they have no case and no charges are accepted. How many people
with legitimate claims then exit the process, demoralized? If
they come to us, we have to fight to get the charges filed,
including writing them ourselves (which I have not had rejected
but never results in much of an investigation).----Comment 99
(Detroit)
Often, before accepting a charge (even one prepared by an
attorney), EEOC intake personnel have required that the charge be
narrowed (for example, to one incident or to one form of
discrimination, such as gender or race discrimination but not both).
For example:
--Refusal to allow charging party to check more than one box; refusal
to allow charging party to name employment agency or joint
employer; not allowing charging party to mention events outside
180 days on the face of the charge; telling charging party she
doesn't have a charge and not letting her file.----Comment 173
(Atlanta); see also Comment 84 (Dallas)
--[T]he EEOC often will not include all claims (even when client has
been instructed by me as to what claims).----Comment 45
(Chicago)
The EEOC resists accepting charges, primarily due to untrained
intake personnel. For example:
--Some investigators are more notorious than others. The intake
investigators are not attorneys but are making legal decisions.
Of course, this could be critical if the individual does not
first see an attorney or delays seeing an attorney until after
the charging party's deadline has passed.----Comment 23
(Raleigh)
--Unqualified people tell me what does and does not fall under Title
VII.----Comment 170 (San Antonio)
--The EEOC told one client that they had too many cases to really
read his case or deal with it since his did not involve a
termination.----Comment 30 (Boston)
--Intake investigators do not seem to understand the elementary
principles of discrimination cases, do not seem to understand
the significance of certain facts when those facts are
presented to them during the intake interview, and can hardly
write an intelligent sentence in either the charge or the
affidavit.----Comment 132 (San Antonio)
--I have been told by investigators that the charge cannot be
accepted without more detailed information, particularly
comparative information. The detail required appears to exceed
the notice pleading standard in federal court.----Comment 24
(El Paso)
--I have seen cases of non-represented complainants in which the
intake person at the EEOC drafts a charge and immediately
issues a notice of right to sue, telling the complainant he/she
``doesn't have a case'' based on the intake person's inaccurate
understanding of the law (e.g., ``If you were the only person
it happened to it can't be discrimination. . . .''). I wonder
how many persons with legitimate complaints rely on that
``advice'' and decide not to pursue their claim.''----Comment
148 (St. Louis)
Timely claims are jeopardized due to delays in the EEOC's
procedures. For example:
--[R]ecently I was contacted by a charging party who had submitted
his questionnaire in October, but as of mid-February had heard
nothing from EEOC. His 180 days to file was within a month of
running. I contacted EEOC on his behalf and was told that they
were ``just getting to'' the October questionnaires and that
the fact that his time was close to running did not give it any
priority over other charges. I ended up filing a charge on his
behalf instead of waiting for the EEOC.----Comment 92 (Atlanta)
--I have a case now where the EEOC told my client that he did not
have a case, and that they wouldn't accept his charge. He
insisted, so they accepted the charge (that they drafted).
Months later (after 300 days post-incident) he got a call from
the EEOC telling him that he needed to sign another (identical)
charge. He did, sent it back, and it was stamped ``filed'' for
that new date. Then, the EEOC dismissed him for filing too
late. Luckily, he had a copy of the original stamped charge,
and we survived a motion to dismiss on this.----Comment 2
(Chicago); see also, Comment 37 (Dallas)
--The EEOC routinely attempts to re-write the charge, invariably
leaves [information] out, and then sends the revised charge to
the client for signature. It then tries to substitute the date
of the ``new'' charge for the original filing date. I then have
to write to the EEOC and demand that they use the original
charge and original filing date. The EEOC has backed down after
receiving my correspondence, but my intervention should not be
necessary. In [another] case in 2006 the EEOC told [my client]
that it could not accept his charge unless he came into the
EEOC personally and complete[d] an intake with an EEOC
employee. The EEOC then sent a letter to the client informing
him that his charge was not valid and would not be accepted
until he followed through on the personal interview. I wrote to
the EEOC, explained the statutory requirements for filing, and
it ultimately accepted the charge with the original date.
Again, this should not have been necessary, particularly since
I had entered my appearance.----Comment 104 (Philadelphia)
Arbitrary and capricious actions by EEOC personnel jeopardize
employees' rights. For example:
--They required a whole new charge to be filed for one typo.----
Comment 70 (Indianapolis)
--In the past 30 days . . . a charge [was] returned to me telling me
that normally they have staff to make corrections on charges,
but because they do not have enough staff currently, they were
sending back my charge and giving me 33 days to correct the
charge. They said that the charge was deficient because I
stated the type of disability on the charge form, I described
damages and my charge narrative was too lengthy (it fit on the
front of the charge form).----Comment 168 (Philadelphia)
--[O]n several occasions from 2005 to the present, [the Miami office]
tried to reject charges [I'd filed] (the most recent occasion
being this month). When I challenged them and asked them to
cite the provision of the EEOC regulations that authorized them
to reject the charge, they backed off. The most egregious of
these instances was a disability discrimination charge in which
``disability'' and ``retaliation'' were checked off and the
charge alleged that my client was an individual with a
disability who was being denied urgently needed accommodations
and whose medical information was not being kept confidential.
(My client was literally dying because of the employer's change
in his work schedule, which interrupted his regime for taking
HIV medication.) Someone from the Miami EEOC office called and
said the charge was being rejected because it didn't expressly
mention the Americans with Disabilities Act. I hit the roof and
told them that the description of the discrimination and
checking off of ``disability'' made it patently obvious that
this was an ADA charge.----Comment 101 (Miami)
Inability to contact EEOC personnel. For example:
--Complete inability to talk to any EEOC personnel about status of
charge, investigation, etc.; complete failure of EEOC to
conduct any investigation of charges that clearly are
meritorious.----Comment 185 (Baltimore)
--I have had . . . numerous occasions where I have attempted to get
in touch with investigators to convey information or inquire
into case status and my calls have not been returned.----
Comment 128 (Cincinnati)
Other Intake Problems Confronted by Survey Respondents and Their
Clients:
--Lack of Spanish-speaking personnel.----Comment 80 (Birmingham)
--The EEOC charge form is not readily available.----Comment 82
(Dallas); see also Comment 32 (Cincinnati)
--Lack of coordination among EEOC personnel (e.g., different
investigators assigned to charges against the same employer
involving the same discriminatory practice).----Comment 86
(Dallas)
--Lost charges and files.----Comments 114 (Philadelphia); Comment 65
(St. Louis); Comment 128 (Cincinnati); Comment 62 (Baltimore)
--Failure to provide right-to-sue letter.----Comment 116 (Charlotte)
Problems with Investigations and Post-charge Processing
The narrative comments that accompanied the survey responses also
enumerate repeated concerns about what takes place after charges are
accepted by the EEOC. These concerns include the following:
--Cursory investigations by untrained investigators. For example:
--The problems I have encountered have occurred after the charge is
filed. We have had several cases where the EEOC simply
decided not to investigate or even [to] require a response
from the Respondent because the EEOC decided the charging
party could not be discriminated against on the basis of
race if the decision maker was the same race. That is not
the law, but it is making it hard to prosecute these
cases.----Comment 13 (Chicago) [emphasis supplied]
--My problems have been with the EEOC's lack of investigation and
routine acceptance of the respondent's position.----Comment
116 (Charlotte)
--Zero knowledge of pretext. EEOC requires direct evidence or they
dismiss the claim. Also, zero knowledge of the single
enterprise theory. If the employer says they don't employ
15 people or 50 people, etc., EEOC makes no further
inquiry.----Comment 52 (New Orleans)
--The EEOC routinely contacts clients who are represented by
counsel and gives them advice which is often incorrect, and
causes the clients unnecessary confusion.----Comment 104
(Philadelphia)
--Pregnancy discrimination charge dismissed because client was
replaced by a female. Investigator didn't understand that
the female that replaced my client was not pregnant.
Recently, same investigator would not allow my client to
amend charge to include retaliation which occurred after
the filing of the first charge. New charge had to be filed
after discussion with investigator's supervisor.----Comment
113 (Denver)
--[T]he investigators are overwhelmingly unqualified (can't even
identify the prima facie elements to claims, and have no
clue how to investigate). There is very little access and
transparency, since the District Director . . . is more
interested in closing files and denying access to position
statements than he is in having his investigators do their
job.----Comment 73 (El Paso)
--Another EEOC problem: they are not investigating a lot of
charges. I've had a few potential clients come in with
charges that received no substantial evidence findings
within 7 days of filing.----Comment 2 (Chicago)
--Perfunctory acceptance of the employer's written response to the
charge, and little or no assessment of the merits or follow-up
to test the representations contained in the employer's
response (such as contacting witnesses or obtaining relevant
comparative data). For example:
--[The] most frequent and significant problem I have encountered is
resistance by some investigators to conduct a meaningful
investigation if they have determined that the case has no
merit. Investigators will often receive the employer's
position statement and reach a premature conclusion that
the charge has no merit. The investigators are then
resistant to conduct[ing] an investigation (e.g., contact
witnesses or obtain documents) that might indicate that the
employer's position statement is inaccurate or is not
meritorious. In my opinion, this resistance occurs from a
need to move and close files at a certain rate.----Comment
77 (St. Louis)
--We get almost no feedback on the [investigation] process.
Conciliation ends up undervaluing the claims dramatically.
There are a few good investigators, but for the most part
there seems to be no will to question, let alone rebut, the
proffered explanation of the employers. When we FOIA the
records afterward there is almost no discovery conducted.
There is almost never a ``for cause'' finding. I think I
have seen at most three or four throughout a fifteen year
career. Needless to say I have settled many a case in which
the EEOC found no cause. The administration at our [EEOC]
office seems completely oblivious to the problems. When the
issues are raised, the reaction is, ``Well, that is not our
policy, so, it must not be happening the way you describe
it.'' I was on the verge of FOIAing the Detroit district
office annual reports to use to request some sort of
Congressional oversight from our senators.----Comment 99
(Detroit)
--The problems I have with the EEOC occur during the supposed
``investigation'' of the charge. The investigators
typically receive the employer's position statement, treat
it like the gospel, do nothing more, and then issue a
terrible letter telling my clients that they were horrible
employees and that there was no discrimination. I have
repeatedly complained about this to the [EEOC] Cleveland
counsel, to no avail.----Comment 98 (Cleveland)
--They simply notify us of their intent to dismiss based on the
employer's position statement without giving the charging
party an opportunity to refute what the employer has
said.----Comment 29 (Detroit)
--Perfunctory issuance of boilerplate right-to-sue letters at intake
or after a pro forma investigation. For example:
--I have seen several instances of clients who file charges and
receive their notice of right to sue at the same time, with
no investigation.----Comment 83 (Dallas)
--My problems arise after filing and the EEOC does nothing. I draft
questions and investigators do not investigate or are just
too busy to do anything. I file at least a half dozen
charges each year. Inevitably we get back the punt, unable
to determine if discrimination took place.''----Comment 57
(Philadelphia)
Inadequate Funding: The Source of the Problems
These findings, as alarming as they are, do not come as a surprise.
They clearly are, in substantial part, symptomatic and the consequence
of an inadequate budget which has resulted in an understaffed agency
burdened with a massive flow of charges and an ever growing backlog.
The Commission has struggled to meet the mounting pressures of this
burden and has tried to adjust to the realities of its budget through a
major reorganization and reallocation of staff. Members of Congress,
NELA, and other stakeholder organizations were critical of and voiced
their skepticism about the reorganization, fearing it would, if
anything, further deplete enforcement and would not result in staffing
that would achieve the results forecast by EEOC. Whether those
criticisms were well founded or whether the Commission's blueprints for
reorganization make sense are appropriate subjects of debate and
scrutiny. That controversy, however, ignores an overwhelming reality.
When the chaff is separated from the wheat, the key fact that
emerges is that the EEOC has for many years only been able to budget a
small amount of its funding to enforcement and virtually nothing to
training personnel. This renders the Commission ill-equipped to achieve
its mission, produces never-ending delays, prevents even minimal
training of staff, and breeds inordinate pressures not to add to a
burgeoning backlog by junking potential and actual cases at every step
of the administrative process. More specifically, it produces an
inherent resistance to the filing of charges by compliance staff,
shortchanges investigations (if and when they take place), and
increases an administrative ``washing of hands'' of cases through the
convenience of boilerplate Notices of Right to Sue that include nothing
but a mere check-off box for ``insubstantial evidence to determine''
discrimination.
The inescapable conclusion is that the reductions in the EEOC's
budget over the past several years have wreaked havoc upon the
Commission's enforcement efforts. For all intents and purposes, these
budget levels have imposed upon the EEOC a paralysis that frustrates
Congressional intent in enacting equal employment opportunity laws, the
Commission's efforts in achieving its mission and, moreover, the rights
of American workers to be free from unlawful employment discrimination.
For those who do succeed in obtaining relief from illegal employer
conduct, that relief is likely to be only after years of delay.
In enacting various anti-discrimination laws, Congress has signaled
that addressing and eliminating invidious discriminatory employment
practices is one of the nation's highest priorities. Thus, it is
incumbent upon Congress to ensure that the Commission--the federal
agency that it has mandated to enforce these laws--receives the
necessary funding to rectify the untenable morass described in this
report. If the EEOC is to overcome the dire consequences of past budget
reductions, then funding well beyond the current levels must be made
available.
At the same time, the EEOC also must be held accountable to
Congress and the public it serves. Thus, oversight and assessment
mechanisms must be put into place to assure that additional resources
are directed toward viable and meaningful enforcement of the EEOC's
mandates. In particular:
--Immediate attention should be given to how many investigators and
attorneys are assigned to each of EEOC's offices as well as to
the past and anticipated case flow at each of these offices.
--A critical examination is needed to determine what, if any,
training is provided to EEOC's compliance staff.
--If EEOC intends to make good on its commitment to revitalize
systemic cases, then the agency needs to assess whether it has
sufficient staff attorneys and support personnel to fulfill
this promise.
--Mechanisms are required to ensure that individual cases are not
short-changed while the Commission pursues systemic cases.
--Factors relating to employee performance incentives and awards
should be based on enforcement of the laws, vindication of
civil rights and changing business practices as opposed to
speeches and community outreach.
Conclusion
The findings of NELA's survey lend credence to the problems faced
by the EEOC and those Americans the agency is mandated to protect from
unlawful employment discrimination. For the EEOC to fulfill its mission
as the federal agency most responsible for the enforcement of the
nation's equal employment opportunity laws, these problems must, at a
minimum, be addressed with more resources targeted at improving basic
enforcement functions.
appendix a.--nela eeoc charge processing survey--numerical data
Total Responses: 343
1. Name:
2. EEOC Office you primarily practice before:
3. Since January 1, 2005, have you drafted a discrimination charge
(or charges) for a client (or clients) that was (were) not accepted for
filing by the EEOC office identified above?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes................................................... 77 22.60
No.................................................... 264 77.40
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 341 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. If yes, how many times did it occur in calendar year 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 155 74.20
1..................................................... 18 8.60
2..................................................... 19 9.10
3-5................................................... 13 6.20
6-10.................................................. 1 0.50
11 or more............................................ 3 1.40
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 209 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. How many times did it occur in calendar year 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 153 70.50
1..................................................... 37 17.10
2..................................................... 15 6.90
3-5................................................... 10 4.60
6-10.................................................. ....... .......
11 or more............................................ 2 0.90
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 217 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. How many times did it occur from January 1, 2007 to present:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 198 92.50
1..................................................... 13 6.10
2..................................................... 1 0.50
3-5................................................... 2 0.90
6-10.................................................. ....... .......
11 or more............................................ ....... .......
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 214 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Since January 1, 2005, have you prepared an EEOC intake
questionnaire (or questionnaires) that was (were) not accepted by the
EEOC office identified above:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes................................................... 19 5.70
No.................................................... 316 94.30
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 335 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. If yes, how many times did it occur in calendar year 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 156 94.00
1..................................................... 2 1.20
2..................................................... 5 3.00
3-5................................................... 1 0.60
6-10.................................................. 2 1.20
11 or more............................................ ....... .......
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 166 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. How many times did it occur in calendar year 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 155 90.60
1..................................................... 10 5.80
2..................................................... 3 1.80
3-5................................................... 2 1.20
6-10.................................................. 1 0.60
11 or more............................................ ....... .......
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 171 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. How many times did it occur from January 1, 2007 to present:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 166 96.50
1..................................................... 5 2.90
2..................................................... ....... .......
3-5................................................... 1 0.60
6-10.................................................. ....... .......
11 or more............................................ ....... .......
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 172 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Since January 1, 2005, have you had other problems with the
EEOC in the processing of charges or intake questionnaires (e.g.,
resistance by EEOC office identified above to accepting filing as
prepared by you, substantial modification by EEOC of what you prepared,
etc.):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes................................................... 117 35.70
No.................................................... 211 64.30
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 328 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. If yes, how many times did it occur in calendar year 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 130 62.20
1..................................................... 24 11.50
2..................................................... 30 14.40
3-5................................................... 21 10.00
6-10.................................................. 4 1.90
11 or more............................................ ....... .......
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 209 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. How many times did it occur in calendar year 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 117 55.70
1..................................................... 34 16.20
2..................................................... 32 15.20
3-5................................................... 23 11.00
6-10.................................................. 3 1.40
11 or more............................................ 1 0.50
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 210 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. How many times did it occur from January 1, 2007 to present:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................................... 164 79.20
1..................................................... 28 13.50
2..................................................... 8 3.90
3-5................................................... 5 2.40
6-10.................................................. 2 1.00
11 or more............................................ ....... .......
-----------------
Total Respondents............................... 207 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
appendix b.--nela eeoc charge processing survey list of eeoc offices
referenced by respondents
Atlanta District Office
Birmingham District Office
Charlotte District Office
Chicago District Office
Dallas District Office
Houston District Office
Indianapolis District Office
Los Angeles District Office
Memphis District Office
Miami District Office
New York District Office
Philadelphia District Office
Phoenix District Office
San Francisco District Office
St. Louis District Office
Baltimore Field Office
Cleveland Field Office
Denver Field Office
Detroit Field Office
New Orleans Field Office
San Antonio Field Office
Tampa Field Office
Seattle Field Office
Washington Field Office
Albuquerque Area Office
Boston Area Office
Cincinnati Area Office
El Paso Area Office
Kansas City Area Office
Louisville Area Office
Milwaukee Area Office
Minneapolis Area Office
Nashville Area Office
Newark Area Office
Pittsburgh Area Office
Raleigh Area Office
Buffalo Local Office
Greenville Local Office
Honolulu Local Office
Las Vegas Local Office
Norfolk Local Office
Oakland Local Office
Richmond Local Office
San Diego Local Office
San Jose Local Office
San Juan Local Office
Savannah Local Office
appendix c.--nela eeoc charge processing survey comments organized by
office
Atlanta District Office
16. [No problems] in the charges we file except that when we have
more than one employer the EEOC now insists upon having separate
charges and they have ended up going to different investigators. Our
clients who come to us after going to the EEOC, on the other hand, have
numerous horror stories about being told they couldn't file because
they still had their job, didn't have a case, etc.
34. I receive many calls from potential clients that describe being
turned away from EEOC and not allowed to file a charge of
discrimination.
41. The problems with the EEOC usually arise when the charging
party is NOT represented by an attorney. That's usually when I hear
about instances of the EEOC refusing charges, or advising charging
parties that they don't have any claims, etc. When the charge comes
from a lawyer, it's been my experience that they usually accept the
charge.
49. Requests to interview my clients directly without informing me
of the nature or specific purpose of the interview, other than saying
that the charge as drafted was insufficient.
59. One of my clients just had his case, a strong religious
discrimination case, dismissed due primarily to the EEOC's
incompetence. The client went to the EEOC, pro se, complaining about
religious discrimination in the workplace. The investigator said that
much of the supporting evidence my client had was more than 6 months
old, and discouraged my client from filing a religious [discrimination]
claim. The investigator asked my client the race of client's boss, who
is white. The client is black. The investigator said he'll check off
the race box. My client said no, it's not a race claim, it's a
religious discrimination claim. The investigator said that he can only
check off one box, and since a lot of client's evidence is more than 6
months old on the religious [discrimination] claim (but his termination
was within 6 months), he will go with race only. My client was pro se,
at the EEOC for the first time, and wrongly trusted the investigator to
get it right. My client subsequently put on the questionnaire that it
is a religious discrimination as well as race matter. The Court denied
Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure of notice in the early stages
of the litigation. We then went through full discovery, costing the
client over $7,000. Then, a new judge took over the case. He tossed the
case on summary judgment due primarily to the EEOC mishandling of the
charge. He also briefly went over the facts of the case and determined
the underlying facts were not strong enough. That was argued very
poorly and we would have had a good shot on appeal on that argument.
Unfortunately though, his primary argument--the EEOC matter--has enough
case law on both sides. We decided not to appeal.
92. The primary problems of which I am aware are related to
unrepresented charging parties who try to file charges. For example,
recently I was contacted by a charging party who had submitted his
questionnaire in October, but as of mid-February had heard nothing from
EEOC. His 180 days to file was within a month of running. I contacted
EEOC on his behalf and was told that they were ``just getting to'' the
October questionnaires and that the fact that his time was close to
running did not give it any priority over other charges. I ended up
filing a charge on his behalf instead of waiting for the EEOC.
93. NELA-GA is in communication with the Atlanta EEOC office about
joint employers. The EEOC wants separate charges filled out for each
employer (meaning the charges are assigned to different mediators,
different investigators . . .); NELA-GA wants all employers to be
listed on the same charge.
110. EEOC often pigeon holes a complaint into ``race'' or
``gender'' rather than check multiple boxes to cover discrimination
based on more than one factor. EEOC also often gives clients
incompetent and wrong legal advice.
118. While I have not had problems with the EEOC accepting my
charges or questionnaires, I have had many potential clients report
that the EEOC would not accept their charges--at least 4 in the past
two months. I cannot say how many have reported this since January
2005, but the numbers seem to be increasing of late. In addition, the
EEOC does not want any information before the 180 day filing period,
whether or not this information is relevant to the discrimination
claims in the charge.
119. Individuals going to the EEOC alone and having the intake
office refuse to take their charge or telling them they have no case.
142. Telling people who come in, even if they have a witness with
them that they have no case. In one instance it involved touching
sexual harassment and an eye witness and they were turned away. They
tell the potential charging party they have no case and never inform
them that there are other laws that the EEOC does not enforce that may
apply to their situation. Also have had preemptory dismissals without
any defect on the face of the charge.
173. Refusal to allow charging party to check more than one box;
refusal to allow charging party to name employment agency or joint
employer; not allowing charging party to mention events outside 180
days on the face of the charge; telling charging party she doesn't have
a charge and not letting her file.
175. One investigator threatened not to accept an amended charge. I
filed it anyway.
Birmingham District Office
80. Lack of Spanish-speaking EEOC personnel in the South.
95. Years ago, in the 1990s, the Birmingham office would not take a
charge by fax. I haven't tried since then. I think charges should be
accepted by fax, email, etc.
151. Most investigators are lazy and rude; one black male hated all
complaints from females, asking ``Who do you think you are?'' to a
sexual harassment victim. He was equally threatening to me. Had to go
to the national director to get him removed. Turned out he was having a
gay affair with an executive of the employer. With no state employment
discrimination laws, we must go through EEOC.
Charlotte District Office
7. I have not really had any problems in connection with the filing
of a charge. My problems have been with the EEOC's lack of
investigation and routine acceptance of the respondent's position.
Also, I have had some incidents where the EEOC has not provided the
right to sue letter to the complainant.
116. My clients who go in person to file charges have been turned
away and told they do not have a charge. They have also encountered
some rude intake people. I have had to tell clients to go back and
insist they have a right to file a charge. I have also had EEOC people
discourage people from retaining an attorney.
141. I have two problems with the EEOC. One, they will not issue a
right to sue letter 180 days after the charge is filed. Two, they will
not keep me informed of the status of the charge.
Chicago District Office
1. Particular EEOC investigator [deleted] is pre-disposed to
employer stances/defenses. [Deleted] has completely unreasonable
demands of clients for specific dates and times of discussions from
over a year prior. [Deleted.] demands both shorter CODs and more
details and facts. [Deleted] even accused attorney of coaching witness
to change testimony and of witness of changing testimony.
2. The EEOC-Chicago now has a rule that they any charges that come
in notarized automatically get sent to the Illinois Department of Human
Rights. The EEOC will take only un-notarized charges. I learned of this
rule from an investigator. Another EEOC problem: they are not
investigating a lot of charges. I've had a few potential clients come
in with charges that received no substantial evidence findings within 7
days of filing. I have a case now where the EEOC told my client that he
did not have a case, and that they wouldn't accept his charge. He
insisted, so they accepted the charge (that they drafted). Months later
(after 300 days post-incident) he got a call from the EEOC telling him
that he needed to sign another (identical) charge. He did, sent it
back, and it was stamped ``filed'' for that new date. Then, the EEOC
dismissed him for filing too late. Luckily, he had a copy of the
original stamped charge, and we survived a motion to dismiss on this.
But the EEOC file had notes saying that he chose not to file the first
charge--total cover-your-#$@ language. I'm guessing they lost the first
charge. Another client of mine had his Chicago charge ignored for 8
months, when he called on it, the Chicago office hadn't heard of him.
He got a call a few days later from the Cleveland office; they were
investigating it. He talked to the investigator and she said she'd get
back to him in 30-45 days. Four hours later she called back, said never
mind the previous call, she was issuing a right to sue now because she
determined from reading the charge that he was not a qualified person
with a disability. (!!!!!) In other words, she was not investigating
it, period. I have another case at the EEOC that has been there for a
couple of years. It has class action potential against a major
retailer, so the legal department is thinking about it. I check in
periodically, get told they are still thinking about it. I don't want
to rock the boat because it would be GREAT for the clients if the EEOC
took this on, but it's been way too long.
3. EEOC refused to accept charge of my client last September 2006.
Two weeks before the 300th day, senior investigator sent a letter in
mid-December saying she would not accept the charge. After I finally
made a scene on the 300th day, EEOC accepted the charge and pulled the
investigator off the file. Then when new investigator called to
interview my client, she refused to give me the name of the attorney
representing the company so I could discuss settlement with the
attorney. I was told the EEOC never gives out names of lawyers and if
we wanted to discuss settlement, we could only do so through EEOC
(translate: so they can get credit for any settlement amounts). On
other fronts, we have seen a great deal of foot dragging on issuing
right to sue letters.
10. Twice my office was told by an EEOC representative that they
changed a policy and now any charge that was notarized would not be
accepted for filing. We had to have the client re-sign the cover sheet
and filed it unnotarized. However, since mid-2006 when this occurred,
we have filed several other charges where the charge was accepted
notarized without incident.
13. The problems I have encountered have occurred after the charge
is filed. We have had several cases where the EEOC simply decided not
to investigate or even require a response from the Respondent because
the EEOC decided charging party could not be discriminated against on
the basis of race if the decision maker was the same race. That is not
the law, but it is making it hard to prosecute these cases.
14. Re: filing charges--they don't investigate, they won't litigate
good cases and choose to litigate horrid cases--they've got it all
backwards here.
31. Apart from my personal experience, potential clients report
EEOC turning them away when they attempt to file a charge. EEOC will
opine they don't have a case. On at least two occasions they misplaced
written appearance notice and contacted client directly.
40. I have never had the EEOC reject for filing a charge I have
drafted, although there was a lot of confusion last year when the EEOC
suddenly began to refuse to accept charges that had been notarized. In
my experience, however, problems with charge filing at the EEOC's
Chicago office are more likely to occur when an individual is not
represented by an attorney. I have had clients first come to me after
they filed a charge that they had EEOC drafted for them, and the charge
often omits important allegations that the client told the EEOC about.
In addition, charge intake personnel sometimes give individuals
misinformation about the strengths or weaknesses of their claims.
45. Because of previous problems with the EEOC I always draft the
charges and have them hand delivered and stamped. I stopped sending my
clients in to file on their own behalf because the EEOC often will not
include all claims (even when client has been instructed by me as to
what claims, or they tell clients they don't have a case even though I
have already determined that they do.
60. EEOC refused to file various charges, but I eventually talked
them into it. EEOC eventually accepted all charges.
72. Chicago office refuses to release the respondent's position
statement ``to the claimant's counsel or to the claimant.''
75. The triage system for handling charges is not well implemented.
Some investigations done are haphazard. The office does not timely
respond to FOIA requests for documents in investigative files, even
after the right-to-sue is issued.
143. Although I primarily work with the EEOC in Chicago, the office
our firm had ``problems'' with was either Tampa or Miami (I'm fairly
certain Miami). We were forced to significantly reduce the length of a
charge, which required leaving out certain factual allegations we
wanted to include. I'm fairly certain this was 2006, but it could have
been late 2005. It could have been very problematic, given varying
judicial interpretations of the ``scope of the charge'' doctrine, but
the matter resolved.
155. I have not encountered significant problems filing charges;
however, I have been encountering increasing resistance during the
investigative phase and even in mediation. Specifically, I have found
an increasing desire by investigators and mediators to close their
files at the expense of the charging party. Many times in recent years,
the investigators have conducted themselves more like an opposing
counsel would when taking my client's deposition (e.g., very
adversarial and confrontational). I certainly don't believe that is the
proper role of the EEOC.
156. Investigator who rolled her eyes during the intake (my client
was not represented then) was assigned to the investigation during
which she ``no caused'' the case in record breaking time based on her
impressions during intake.
181. Problem I had was with Miami, Florida office. The EEOC would
not accept the charge we drafted and instead re-wrote a shorter and
less complete charge.
186. The time for a charge to be processed from start until we get
right to sue is wildly inconsistent. We get right to sues within a few
months finding no evidence or get a right to sue over 1 year later.
There is no consistency that I have recognized either in terms of the
type of charge, merit of the charge, or any other possible pattern.
Dallas District Office
9. I file many charges with the EEOC. I prepare my clients'
charges. I have never had a problem with the EEOC in accepting the
charges.
26. Failure to investigate, failure to interview witnesses, failure
to request documents, difficulty in getting in touch with EEOC
investigators.
37. I had one disturbing situation with a client who met with me
after first going to the Dallas EEOC. What he told me about his
treatment there concerned me, as it may signal a more widespread
problem in terms of acceptance of charges. In his situation, he was
told that he did not have a case and that if he insisted on filing a
charge they would give him a right to sue notice that day and he would
have only 90 days to file suit. Since he didn't have an attorney at the
time, he did not file the charge that day. Luckily, he met with me in
sufficient time to still file a charge, which we did without trouble,
and the case later resolved during litigation. The fact that he was
turned away initially, however, bothers me a great deal. How many
others are told they don't have a case and are turned away?
58. Telling me what the law is even if they are wrong and therefore
wanting to dictate dates of discrimination and whether I can mark
continuing action. Not wanting to accept more explanation, such as a
letter detailing the charge, as opposed to just limiting the
information to the small space on the form. I got my way in the end
each time, but was a hassle. For clients--not processing the intake
questionnaire in a timely manner, such that questionnaire pre-dates by
weeks actual charge while deadlines tick.
82. The EEOC Charge form is not readily available.
83. I have seen several instances of clients who file charges and
receive their notice of right to sue at the same time, with no
investigation. I have also had clients tell me that they were told that
they did not have a case and were not allowed to file a charge.
84. A client who filed her charge with the San Antonio, TX office
in 2005 (prior to my representation of her) was forced to substantially
modify her claims and description of events supporting her charge. The
EEOC staff member said that the EEOC would not accept her charge unless
she made the changes. These changes substantially and negatively
impacted the client's case.
85. Client filed initial race discrimination charge. After
reporting some possible retaliation to me, I instructed her to write a
letter to EEOC to amend charge to add retaliation. EEOC did not amend
charge, and her charge received no attention for several months.
86. Multiple clients filing charges against a single employer for
the same reason. Charges are assigned out to different investigators.
If one investigator were to take the charge, then they would have a
more complete picture of what is going on at the employer. Also, the
problem seems to be mainly with people who attempt to file charges
without an attorney. I get many, many calls from people who say that
the EEOC told them that they do not have a case when in fact they do
have one, or would have if they had filed the charge when they
contacted EEOC. EEOC gave them bad legal advice which caused them not
to file when they should have, and their rights were compromised.
96. I have had potential clients who tell me the EEOC told them
there is ``no discrimination'' and refuse to take a charge.
134. Other than the fact that for at least the last 25 years, the
EEOC intake staff has demonstrated hostility to working people in
general and a great capacity for leisure, nothing out of the ordinary--
but then I have come to expect nothing from the EEOC of a positive
nature, either.
136. Local offices have been resistant to providing a qualified
sign language interpreter for interviews so that a person who is deaf
can fully understand the questions they are being asked. At times, I
have had to bring my own sign language interpreters to the EEOC office
in order to ensure that my clients can understand what is going on in
the interview.
187. Sometimes I have to submit a legal brief to support the
charge, but the EEOC office has always accepted the briefing.
192. I have had clients go to the EEOC to try to file a charge
before they have retained counsel. They were told by the EEOC that they
did not have a case and were not allowed to file a charge. Once I was
hired, I would send the client back to the EEOC, but there were times
when the claim would be time barred if the EEOC did not use the initial
date of the client visit. I have run into problems where the EEOC would
not go back and use that initial first visit date as the date for
filing the charge even though the EEOC told the client he/she could not
file a charge because he/she did not have a case.
Houston District Office
47. EEOC officials routinely tell individuals they cannot file
charges or their grounds do not constitute violations. They are NOT in
a position to know and have done no investigation. Usually they are
wrong anyway for a plethora of reasons, including philosophic reasons.
All charges should be allowed to be filed. Also, charges filed are
incomplete and strictly boiler plate and missing essential facts and
claims, usually discrimination and national origin claims as it relates
to race and color claims. Also, the EEOC officials fail to identify 42
USC 1981 claims which have no punitive damages limits as well and
advise.
87. I am now having trouble with multiple employers in two areas:
(1) where we are not sure if the underlying employer is a separate
company of the parent so we name both and both need to be noticed . . .
am not sure they are; and, (2) where there are co-employers, I heard by
the grapevine that they should be two separate charges on the same
facts, but have not had anything rejected yet.
103. They do not always confirm they have received a charge and
return it with a charge number. Also, they often do not send a copy of
the right to sue or other correspondence to the attorney.
149. Not precisely relevant, but a couple years ago I represented a
woman who went to the EEOC and met with an intake person. She was
scared to death to file a charge and wasn't committed to doing so. She
went just to get information and discuss her options. The intake person
prepared a charge and mailed it to her. She wasn't prepared to file a
charge. The next thing she knew, she received a notice of right to sue,
copied to the employer, dismissing the charge she never filed on the
grounds that she'd failed to cooperate. No investigation was done of
course, and nor had she ever actually filed a charge. This was during
the time that Houston was headed by [deleted], an incompetent
management tool who remains in charge of the Dallas and San Antonio
offices. I contacted him to seek some redress of the situation. He
agreed to withdraw the notice of right to sue only if my client agreed
to immediately file a charge with the understanding that it would be
promptly dismissed without an investigation, thereby giving her an
untainted right to sue. It was truly an appalling abuse of the
Commission's authority, all around.
158. People who file (or try to file) before obtaining our
assistance have problems--they are refused, or the wrong claims are
asserted, or joint employers are not named.
183. Numerous clients over the years, including 2005-2007 have
reported to me that the Houston District Office of the EEOC refused
their attempt to file a charge. I also have had some reports of intake
personnel at the office strongly discouraging individuals from
contacting an attorney regarding their claims.
Indianapolis District Office
70. They required a whole new charge to be filed for one typo.
109. The Indianapolis EEOC office asked plaintiff's attorneys to
cooperate with them by NOT preparing written filings to them for our
clients. They want the intake questionnaires and charges to be drafted
by their trained personnel. Given this request, we have provided our
clients with contact information and sent them to file directly with
the EEOC. Many, many of them have called me to complain that the EEOC
intake officer told them they do not have a case and refuse to file a
charge for them. Only after my client has become belligerent--because I
warn them this may happen and they need to insist--then a charge is
finally prepared and it is usually pretty sloppy. I then rewrite the
charge for the client to sign and file. At the investigation stage,
there is no such thing as an investigation anymore. I have not had the
EEOC actually do an on-site investigation and take witness interviews
in a case since they started the A,B,C classification system. Instead,
I get a letter summarizing the respondent's legitimate non-
discriminatory action and a demand that I submit proof to rebut it--
which is ignored if I submit it--followed by issuance of a dismissal
and notice of rights. I treat the EEOC process as just a time waster
that allows my client to save up the filing fee so we can file a
complaint as soon as the right to sue notice is issued. It is a real
waste of taxpayer dollars.
Los Angeles District Office
6. Inability of intake officers to distinguish important from
unimportant information provided by claimant.
8. The EEOC process is a complete mystery to me. I rarely file with
the EEOC, so the numbers above represent 100 percent of my filings with
the EEOC. In one case, there was such a substantial delay in
communicating with me, I sent a letter asking for a right to sue
letter. Despite follow-up calls and letters, to date, my client has
never received a right to sue letter. Over six months has elapsed. I
really do not understand the procedures.
23. Most of our charges are initiated by the Nevada Equal Rights
Commission (NERC) as the deferral agency to the EEOC. The NERC
frequently to my understanding refuses to take charges from individuals
acting in proper person.
78. I personally have not had any situations where the EEOC has
refused to accept a charge drafted by me. However, it should be noted
that many years ago I worked at the EEOC as an attorney (and prior
thereto as a Paralegal and Investigator) and still know some of the
individuals at the agency. I do know that the Los Angeles office is
VERY short staffed. The number of investigators is dismal in comparison
to the number of investigators that were at the agency when I was there
in the 1980s.
Memphis District Office
42. Intake person did not want to accept charge which I prepared
and filed on behalf of a client. After that resistance, I began to file
the charges by mail and did not meet with any further resistance.
137. They have tried to rewrite the charge to be very vague and
non-specific, which leads to all kinds of trouble later. When I
protested, the EEOC intake worker said that they had been instructed to
take out specifics and leave vague, bare-bones allegations.
Miami District Office
4. The EEOC office in Florida is overwhelmed and conducts little or
no investigation. They do not forward any documents to us and actually
read the position over the phone as opposed to sending it to the firm.
Often the investigator is uninformed on the law and has an out-dated
definition of the law. Honestly, I see little benefit to the process
and wonder if the budget could not be used in other ways.
15. We are concerned that the EEOC rarely, if ever, contacts the
witnesses that we provide before it makes a final determination/
decision. Needless to say, clients are upset if the EEOC does not
contact the witnesses provided when making decisions. In fact, may
clients feel that it is the firm's fault that the EEOC doesn't contact
witnesses.
17. My charges are frequently rewritten.
21. Most recent problem was charging party worked at home and
employer had no Florida address. I file charges with EEOC and FCHR,
requesting EEOC mediate and investigate. Eliminates problems.
44. None, but I am utilizing a local OEO office, which acts as an
intake office for the Miami EEOC.
53. The biggest issue is getting the investigator to actually do an
investigation beyond reading the charge, position statement and reply.
I have rarely seen that they contact witnesses, for example, or demand
documents relevant to the charge.
69. I have never experienced a problem with the Tampa office in
nearly nine years of dealing with them. [Deleted] and [deleted] are
especially helpful.
101. The Miami office has accepted all the charges that I've
drafted but on several occasions from 2005 to the present, they tried
to reject charges (the most recent occasion being this month). When I
challenged them and asked them to cite the provision of the EEOC
regulations that authorized them to reject the charge, they backed off.
The most egregious of these instances was a disability discrimination
charge in which ``disability'' and ``retaliation'' were checked off and
the charge alleged that my client was an individual with a disability
who was being denied urgently needed accommodations and whose medical
information was not being kept confidential. (My client was literally
dying because of the employer's change in his work schedule, which
interrupted his regime for taking HIV medication.) Someone from the
Miami EEOC office called and said the charge was being rejected because
it didn't expressly mention the Americans with Disabilities Act. I hit
the roof and told them that the description of the discrimination and
checking off of ``disability'' made it patently obvious that this was
an ADA charge. The most recent instance concerned a sexual harassment
and retaliation charge that generally alleged that my client had been
subjected to sexual and retaliatory harassment by managers. I received
a phone call from an investigator at the Miami office in which he
indicated that the charge would not be accepted for filing unless we
provided specific facts on the face of the charge. In a not-very-
friendly tone, he asked how could I expect the employer to respond to
the charge without putting it on notice of the instances of harassment.
111. Would not let me file a single charge against two respondents
that I was alleging constituted a joint employer.
145. What I find is that unrepresented individuals are still being
told ``you don't have a case'' and are turned away. Sometimes their
time has passed before they decide to hire counsel. Otherwise, I have
to say that I've had better luck the past couple of years with the EEOC
process. More ``cause'' findings, although they are still unusual (I
tell people they are more likely to be struck by lightning). And I had
the first conciliation that actually resulted in a settlement in 20
years of practice. Most still result in nothing but additional delay. I
would definitely like to see more pressure put on parties to resolve in
conciliation, such as mandatory participation in mediation.
New York District Office
5. Often inadequate investigation, extremely slow but sometimes the
investigator is very good.
18. Investigations seem half hearted, with the outcome pre-
determined. I especially object to the New York office transferring
matters to Boston, where the investigators seem to almost object to
having to handle the file.
36. Filing is usually no problem. It's the lack of meaningful
action after that's the problem.
39. I have never had a problem filing a charge with the NYDO. I
have never had an intake officer refuse a charge or otherwise practice
law without a license. I don't know if this happens to pro se charging
parties but I have never had a client make such a complaint to me. I do
make sure to file the charge in quintuplicate by certified mail return
receipt requested.
105. Investigation stage is very slow.
122. The Boston Area Office waits 180 days and then dismisses the
charge. The investigators are often deceived by a lengthy and organized
position statement, regardless of substance.
131. I sent a charge to the NYDO for filing in November 2006 and it
was not processed until January 2007. Fortunately the statute of
limitations had not run, but it caused significant anxiety for my
client.
178. Several years ago, maybe before 2005, I had to write letters
to senior attorneys in Washington, D.C., to get someone to pay
attention to the fact that I had to make an urgent filing. In general,
I have found that the phone numbers listed on the EEOC website prior to
the phone center were simply not answered at all in some cities. Most
of my practice is outside of NY.
Philadelphia District Office
11. The Philadelphia office sent one of my cases to the Baltimore
office. The Baltimore office excluded my involvement even though I, the
attorney for the charging party, filed the charges and had my name on
record. The Baltimore office then made a determination solely on the
employer's position statement that was filled with misrepresentations.
The charging party was denied opportunity for a rebuttal because I
never was notified after the case went to Baltimore for investigation.
I learned of the Baltimore office's involvement only after a right to
sue was issued. I was not sent a copy of the right to sue. Now the case
is pending in USDC, Eastern District PA.
22. Mailed charge. Intake called me and said the EEOC does not
handle ``Black on Black'' discrimination. Claim was that an African
American supervisor subjected employees to disparate treatment. A call
to the office intake supervisor ([deleted]) took care of it.
28. The only problem I have had is filing a charge and then
receiving a stack of questionnaires in the mail which I have to fill
out with my client before EEOC will docket the charge. All of the
information in the questionnaires had been included in the charge and
affidavit. Since then, I attended their intake training and even though
I think the intake questionnaires are burdensome, I followed their
instructions to the letter and have had no further problems with
intake. My charges have tended to settle early so I have no further
info re: handling subsequent to intake.
46. Charges never get processed at all. I filed a charge two months
ago and have not received any correspondence from any investigator on
it.
56. The only problem I have is that it takes weeks for the intake
personnel to time stamp the charges making them appear to be filed
later than they actually are. I have never had a problem with filing.
57. I have never had a problem with filing charges. My problems
arise after filing that the EEOC does nothing. I draft questions and
investigators do not investigate or are just too busy to do anything. I
file at least a half dozen charges each year. Inevitably we get back
the punt, unable to determine if or if not discrimination took place.
74. This was before 2005, but I had a client who was told by an
investigator that he didn't have a claim because he lied on his
employment application. The lie was that he said that he resigned from
his prior job when he actually was fired and had a prior lawsuit
claiming discrimination there. I had to go to Philadelphia with a
letter that was a mini-brief before they overturned Newark and reopened
the case. The Newark investigator never heard of the after-acquired
evidence rule.
88. More recently our problems with the EEOC have included
misplacement of files and failure to notify our office of dismissals of
charges and the issuances of notices of right sue letters. This has
occurred twice thus far in 2007 from Philadelphia and once from Newark
in 2006.
104. I ordinarily file my own EEOC charges for my clients with an
entry of appearance. The EEOC routinely attempts to re-write the
charge, invariably leaves out, and then sends the revised charge to the
client for signature. It then tries to substitute the date of the
``new'' charge for the original filing date. I then have to write to
the EEOC and demand that they use the original charge and original
filing date. The EEOC has backed down after receiving my
correspondence, but my intervention should not be necessary. For
unrepresented clients or people represented by attorneys unfamiliar
with the statute this could present some really difficult problems. In
one case in 2006 the EEOC called my client, on whose behalf I had
entered an appearance, and told him that it could not accept his charge
unless he came into the EEOC personally and complete an intake with an
EEOC employee. The EEOC then sent a letter to the client informing him
that his charge was not valid and would not be accepted until he
followed through on the personal interview. I wrote to the EEOC,
explained the statutory requirements for filing, and it ultimately
accepted the charge with the original date. Again, this should not have
been necessary, particularly since I had entered my appearance. The
EEOC routinely contacts clients who are represented by counsel and
gives them advice which is often incorrect, and causes the clients
unnecessary confusion.
114. Charges have been lost. I believe charges from counsel should
be accepted before questionnaires or other confirming information is
provided.
121. Intake workers and investigators who do not understand the law
and, more importantly, decline to let you educate them about it.
138. EEOC normally will not accept a charge unless it is
accompanied by numerous other forms (which could be provided during the
course of the investigation). These include: Allegations of
discrimination; Witness Questionnaire; Remedy form; Discharge (or
other) form; etc.
139. I have filed a charge of discrimination on behalf of a client
over 2 months ago and have yet to receive any correspondence even
saying it has been received.
140. The EEOC is consistently resistant to accepting charges
drafted by my office as drafted and does not accept charges that
require investigation on a systemic basis. After the charge is filed,
it is often difficult to secure the cooperation of the investigators in
seeking appropriate information and documents.
146. Unfortunately most of the charges I file are with the Delaware
Department of Labor that has a reciprocal working relationship with the
EEOC. The EEOC can then do a substantial weight review, which means in
most cases they adopt the DDOL findings.
152. I handle many federal employee cases, so the procedure is
different. When I have private sector cases I refer and file them at
the PHRC because I do not like the EEOC procedures. Since I also take
many small cases that have potential settlement value, I find that the
``triage'' procedure at the EEOC is not conducive to getting such a
case settled.
157. Delays in docketing, not returning time-stamped copies.
168. In the past 30 days I received a charge returned to me telling
me that normally they have staff to make corrections on charges, but
because they do not have enough staff currently, they were sending back
my charge and giving me 33 days to correct the charge. They said that
the charge was deficient because I stated the type of disability on the
charge form, I described damages and my charge narrative was too
lengthy (it fit on the front of the charge form).
174. They are quite hostile to any charge that's actually carefully
drafted by counsel. In Philadelphia anyway, they like to have one big,
fat, run-on paragraph that throws in (supposedly) everything. It's the
kind of drafting that any advocate would be ashamed of, has no
persuasive value, and has no utility later in the case. They really
resent a lawyer's effort to represent the client.
177. My partner had a problem in the past year with an investigator
trying to rewrite a Charge of Discrimination in an ADA case claiming
that they were not allowed to accept charges that describe the
disability in detail.
188. Supposedly required information was missing from our charge.
The charge was initially rejected but through discussions with the
Buffalo office, those problems were resolved and the charge was
accepted.
Phoenix District Office
162. The time to get a Notice of Right to Sue once a request for
dismissal of the case has been submitted.
163. The EEOC doesn't seem to follow-up or even investigate some of
the worst charges.
San Francisco District Office
19. I generally discourage clients from filing with the EEOC
because California's FEHA gives greater protection. But, I intervened
in an EEOC case in 2005. I was appalled at how the EEOC investigator
allowed the employer to limit the scope of his investigation to an
interview with the general manager only. The EEOC investigator
interviewed some of the witnesses and reviewed a few of the documents
that my client had identified only after I complained. However, I found
working with EEOC Deputy Attorney [deleted] both a privilege and a
pleasure.
33. Offices in our area follow different procedures and constantly
demand more information or different formats to accept charges. We have
not experienced refusals because we do not accept refusals and are
persistent about filing charges. I would not send a client to file a
charge himself/herself.
43. None with the EEOC but lots with the California Department of
Fair Employment and Housing.
94. Sent a non-African-American client to EEOC to complain that he
had been fired because employer thought he was African-American. EEOC
told him he could not file a complaint.
129. Several years ago I participated in a mediation conducted by a
very biased mediator. It was obvious the mediator had a strong bias in
favor of the University of Nevada (the defendant). I walked out of the
mediation (I settled the case the next day (no thanks to the
mediator)). I wrote to the EEOC and described the inappropriate and
biased conduct of the mediator. This mediation occurred approximately
in 2001. I have also experienced a couple of incidents whereby the EEOC
basically attempted to hijack cases. I resisted these efforts
successfully. The EEOC targeted my best cases, i.e., cases involving
multiple sexual harassment victims, egregious conduct, blatant failure
by management to redress the conduct, and strong corroborating
evidence. I resisted the attempt to wrest control of the cases because
I have had experience with the EEOC at mediation, i.e., I've witnessed
an attempt by the EEOC to effect a nominal damage settlement in an
extremely strong case involving seven plaintiffs. I effected a
settlement for approximately 700 percent of what the EEOC mediator
proposed the case be resolved for. It was obvious the EEOC mediator was
intent on improving the EEOC's statistics--as opposed to achieving an
acceptable resolution for the plaintiffs. Therefore, when the EEOC
attempted to cherry pick my best cases, I resisted this effort. In my
opinion, the EEOC tends to devalue good cases, i.e., they explain to
plaintiffs (with extremely strong cases) the average settlement is
something like $17,000 (I can't recall the exact figure used, but it is
in this range). This is an appropriate settlement for a relatively weak
case. The EEOC attempted to foist off this figure in one of my cases
which involved seven women, who had been subjected to protracted,
crystalline abuse (fucking c---, etc.). The response of management
consisted of, ``if you don't like it, there's the door.'' I easily
obtained six, devastating corroborating affidavits. The defendant
employed approximately 20,000 persons.
167. None. My problems in the last six years have been with the
Oakland DFEH.
191. Many, many problems pre-2005 with various offices, including
San Jose and Miami. Much better experience recently.
St. Louis District Office
77. Most frequent and significant problem I have encountered is
resistance by some investigators to conduct a meaningful investigation
if they have determined that the case has no merit. Investigators will
often receive the employer's position statement and reach a premature
conclusion that the charge has no merit. The investigators are then
resistant to conduct an investigation (i.e. contact witnesses or obtain
documents) that might indicate that the employer's position statement
is inaccurate or is not meritorious. In my opinion, this resistance
occurs from a need to move and close files at a certain rate.
108. I haven't experienced any charge filing problems with the St.
Louis District Office since 1/31/2006 when I started private practice.
It is difficult to get a blank charge, so once you get one, the best
thing to do is keep it on your computer for future use.
135. I've had them ``lose'' an entire charge in 2005 that I had
hand-delivered to the office. The internal ``mediators,'' [deleted] and
[deleted], are wholly worthless and investigator [deleted] REFUSED to
find a Title VII violation where active KKK recruitment was ongoing at
the jobsite! He classed that as a Title VIII (and, yes HUD is involved
and a Title VIII retaliation charge has been filed and is being
litigated in KS USDC) case--but was overruled by the Regional Director
and a Cause Finding issued leading to Conciliation (which failed).
148. I have seen cases of non-represented complainants in which the
intake person at the EEOC drafts a charge and immediately issues a
notice of right to sue, telling the complainant he/she ``doesn't have a
case'' based on the intake person's inaccurate understanding of the
law; e.g. ``if you were the only person it happened to it can't be
discrimination . . .'' I wonder how many persons with legitimate
complaints rely on that ``advice'' and decide not to pursue their
claim.
176. I don't have problems--we have schooled over the years so that
now they just take the charges we draft, give them a number and docket
them. However, we hand deliver them and get them stamped received just
to be safe. It is the unrepresented people who have problems. For
instance, I have had people come to see me who have been told by the
intake folks that they don't have a case and don't know they can insist
on filing a charge. I draft and file the charge and there is no
problem. I really worry about the folks who don't have a lawyer, not
the ones who do!!
Baltimore Field Office
55. The personnel don't seem to be very well trained and don't
provide the follow-up or keep their commitments. The Baltimore office
seems to be a low performer.
62. Lost charges; when clients go to the EEOC on their own, EEOC
representatives inadequately write up the complaint on the charging
form or fail to allege all types of discrimination, thereby limiting
the client's recovery.
64. I have not filed any charges in the specified time frames, so
have not had any problems.
65. Charge not assigned to investigator for months, charge then
transferred without reason to Baltimore.
79. The Baltimore, MD EEOC initially would not accept a charge
alleging discrimination against an employment agency. At first they
didn't realize they had jurisdiction over employment agencies. Then
they erroneously stated that in the 4th Circuit, the employment agency
had to meet the definition of employer (i.e. at least 15 employees).
The representative I spoke with finally agreed they should investigate,
and then referred it to an investigator who didn't understand the notes
that were supposedly in the file and dismissed it for lack of
jurisdiction.
127. Long periods of time without communication; erratic
investigations--some investigators send the Respondents' position paper
for us to rebut and others just dismiss the charge; mediation
coordinator supervisor in Baltimore is terrible. (Keep this anonymous
please.)
165. I have not experienced any problems regarding the filing of
charges. The main problem that I have experienced is being able to
speak with an actual person when I call an office.
185. Complete inability to talk to any EEOC personnel about status
of charge, investigation, etc.; complete failure of EEOC to conduct any
investigation of charges that clearly are meritorious.
Cleveland Field Office
91. They make the clients wait to talk.
98. The problems I have with the EEOC occur during the supposed
``investigation'' of the charge. The investigators typically receive
the employer's position statement, treat it like the gospel, do nothing
more, and then issue a terrible letter telling my clients that they
were horrible employees and that there was no discrimination. I have
repeatedly complained about this to the Cleveland counsel, to no avail.
133. EEOC is resistant to lawyers being involved in the process.
And they require too much bureaucratic involvement at the front end,
causing cases to be untimely. For this reason, I almost always refer
clients to the state agency, where you can file a charge on-line,
without the micromanaging that EEOC uses. They are useless, as far as
investigation and providing any information regarding the employer's
position, and I only recommend them when the charge is an age
discrimination charge, based on our state's idiosyncratic way of
dealing with them.
144. No problems with filing (although I know that charging parties
have contacted me after they've filed because of problems they've had).
Always a problem getting EEOC to investigate!
150. Investigators contacting the charging party directly despite
my request to be involved with the intake and circumventing my attempts
to set up a conference call.
Denver Field Office
90. 1. Refusing to provide a copy of Position Statement or even a
Summary of a Position Statement makes preparing a meaningful rebuttal
nearly impossible. 2. Asking that rebuttals--even in complicated
cases--be prepared within 5 days although the EEOC has had the Position
Statement for more than a year. 3. Being asked by investigators to
draft charges in a rigid manner when the facts are more wide-ranging
and some context is necessary. As lawyers, we have to anticipate ways
our charges may be attacked--which might require something other than
what the investigator wants. 4. Disputes as to what is an amended
charge or a new charge.
113. Pregnancy discrimination charge dismissed because client was
replaced by a female. Investigator didn't understand that the female
that replaced my client was not pregnant. Recently same investigator
would not allow my client to amend charge to include retaliation which
occurred after the filing of the first charge. New charge had to be
filed after discussion with investigator's supervisor.
169. The EEOC makes it very difficult to file class charges or to
file multi-charges for a number of class members who need a joint
investigation. Our problems are not so much with the EEOC process in
accepting charges, but in their failure to investigate cases and their
biases against charging parties and their attorneys.
180. The Denver office has turned individuals away who were NOT
represented. In one case during 2006, they advised the client to get an
attorney, but they still turned the client away. Thanks!
Detroit Field Office
29. They simply notify us of intent to dismiss based on the
employer's position statement without giving the charging party an
opportunity to refute what the employer has said.
76. My client went to file an EEOC charge against Cintas, a company
that the EEOC has had multiple claims against. I wrote out the charge
for the client and she went down. She called me in tears because the
EEOC refused to take the claim. Told her she did not have a claim. Our
office wrote a letter to the EEOC and I then accompanied her back to
the EEOC. After the charge was taken, nothing was done in terms of
investigation. After several inquiries I was told the case was being
sent to Washington to be handled along with other claims against
Cintas. A few months later the case was dismissed, citing the
defendant's claims verbatim. I do not believe any real investigation
was done into my client's case.
99. We have many problems. In the Detroit area the EEOC office acts
as a palliative: aggrieved individuals go there, uncounseled as a first
step in the process. They are often told that they have no case and no
charges are accepted. How many people with legitimate claims then exit
the process, demoralized? If they come to us, we have to fight to get
the charges filed, including writing them ourselves (which I have not
had rejected but never results in much of an investigation). We get
almost no feedback on the process. Conciliation ends up undervaluing
the claims dramatically. There are a few good investigators, but for
the most part there seems to be no will to question, let alone rebut,
the proffered explanation of the employers. When we FOIA the records
afterward there is almost no discovery conducted. There is almost never
a ``for cause'' finding. I think I have seen at most three or four
throughout a fifteen year career. Needless to say I have settled many a
case in which the EEOC found no cause. The administration at our office
seems completely oblivious to the problems. When the issues are raised,
the reaction is, ``Well, that is not our policy, so, it must not be
happening the way you describe it.'' I was on the verge of FOIAing the
Detroit district office annual reports to use to request some sort of
Congressional oversight from our senators. My understanding is their
entire litigation office only brought three cases to litigation in
2006. This is outrageous.
120. People who we speak to and send to EEOC on their own have
reported that they are turned away from the EEOC and their charge is
rejected.
New Orleans Field Office
20. Very negative in general. Usually don't understand retaliation
claims.
52. Zero knowledge of pretext. EEOC requires direct evidence or
they dismiss the claim. Also, zero knowledge of the single enterprise
theory. If the employer says they don't employ 15 people or 50 people,
etc., EEOC makes no further enquiry. Finally, EEOC requires the
complainant to sign the questionnaire and charge under penalty of
perjury, but the employer can respond via unsworn letter or even from
the company attorney, without being bound by the response.
124. The whole process is just very slow. It usually takes anywhere
from 30-60 days to get a response back from the EEOC.
San Antonio Field Office
50. I've had numerous situations where the client has been told
it's your word against theirs and it would be a waste of time.
Employees of the EEOC would try to dissuade the client from filing.
51. The times that the EEOC has rejected a charge or redrafted it
were for purely stylistic reasons that in my opinion were unwarranted,
such as rejecting a 1\1/2\ page charge that supposedly included ``too
much information.'' This has not happened frequently but it is annoying
and seems non-sensical when it does happen.
67. I have a problem with the new process at the San Antonio
branch. They will not give me a copy of the employer's response but
will only read it to me over the telephone. Also, I am not notified if
and when the employer files a response, so I usually just get a letter
from the investigator regurgitating the employer's position and
ignoring the witness affidavits that I submitted.
71. Primary problem is EEOC turning away those who wish to file
charges when NOT accompanied by a lawyer. They often do not make it to
a private lawyer until many months later and sometimes miss the state
180-day deadline or even the federal 300-day deadline because they were
discouraged from filing what was, in my opinion, a perfectly viable
claim.
106. Back in perhaps 2002, the local office refused to accept a
charge I had prepared. But, it was during the lunch hour, when a back-
up person was working the front desk. When I went later that week
myself, they accepted my charge with no problems.
112. I frequently counsel my clients that they WILL meet resistance
to filing their complaints at the EEOC and they must INSIST that they
be filed.
132. Intake investigators do not seem to understand the elementary
principles of discrimination cases, do not seem to understand the
significance of certain facts when those facts are presented to them
during the intake interview, and can hardly write an intelligent
sentence in either the charge or the affidavit.
147. Timeliness--even though charge was faxed in timely, but
received by mail after deadline. Summary conclusion--the charge does
not apply to any laws we enforce.
164. Rejecting the charge we prepared, rewriting it and leaving
things out, refusing to accept a Form 5 from a private attorney.
170. Unqualified people telling me what does and does not fall
under Title VII.
Tampa Field Office
25. Transferring a charge from Tampa to Miami and then not keeping
me informed of the progress, including after dismissing the charge for
alleged lack of jurisdiction. Tampa had me on their referral list, but
I recently found out they had my wrong area code.
172. I filed a charge where the 300th day was a Sunday. The charge
was sent by Fed Ex on Friday and delivered on Monday. It was returned
as untimely. I call the Director and left messages about this but he
never returned my call. Additionally, within the last year or so I have
had extreme difficulty getting through to a live person when I call the
EEOC--I get put into the ``circular voice mail'' thing and end up
hanging up in frustration.
Seattle Field Office
35. No meaningful investigation--witnesses not contacted, no
employer records requested, etc.
48. I had them ``lose track'' of my client's charge for 9 months.
171. I think the Seattle EEOC office does a great job and they have
always been responsive to my clients' need. I live in Anchorage,
Alaska, and practice statewide in Alaska. We do not have our own EEOC
office, but the Seattle office makes a big effort to outreach to
Alaska.
182. EEOC is now so overworked that I am hesitant to use them for
anything but getting a NRTS.
Washington Field Office
63. We have a strong local law and need not exhaust administrative
remedies first before going to court. Therefore the EEOC is not usually
involved in most of our cases as we spend most of our time in the
private sector.
66. Charges are not promptly prepared after questionnaire is
completed and submitted. There are long delays in getting the final,
typed up charge. Often, the language in the final charge is not
accurate and needs to be corrected; this results in more delay.
Telephone calls to make appointments, ask questions, inquire about
status, etc. are not returned. Waiting periods in the lobby are long,
even if no one else is sitting there.
97. I practice federal-sector law before the EEOC, and that process
is slightly different than the private-sector cases. The biggest
problem in the federal-sector is the inordinate delays in the
assignment of an EEOC Administrative Judge.
154. We tend to file charges we prepare ourselves with supporting
declarations of 5 to 15 pages. In several cases, EEOC has substantially
delayed processing the charges while they rewrite our charges. As far
as I can tell, the rewrites are pointless because they don't change the
substance of the charge.
Boston Area Office
30. The EEOC told one client that they had too many cases to really
read his case or deal with it with his since his did not involve a
termination.
68. Connecticut is a deferral state, so we have little contact with
EEOC, other than filing the initial charge. I have had only one case
that was processed solely by EEOC, since it was filed more than 180
days after the discriminatory act. EEOC sent the case to mediation
which was successful. They used a great mediator and I was very happy
with the outcome.
89. Basically, I have a problem in their lack of investigation. I
almost never file directly with the EEOC, but with our State agency. I
do that even if it is going to get bumped to the EEOC.
115. In Maine, we file with the Maine Human Rights Commission and
they forward our charges to the EEOC. I have not known of any charges
returned to the MHRC during that process but am not sure that I would
be told about it. I dislike dealing with the EEOC so much that I
virtually never file directly with them.
Cincinnati Area Office
32. Two problems: (1) no charge form available online (which is
ridiculous); and (2) inconsistency between local practice and general
charge form (which our office had to create from a hard copy ``EEOC
form.''
128. I have had several times where the office has been overly
technical with the content of the charges. I have had charges get lost
there and have had numerous occasions where I have attempted to get in
touch with investigators to convey information or inquire into case
status and my calls have not been returned.
El Paso Area Office
24. I have been told by investigators that the charge cannot be
accepted without more detailed information, particularly comparative
information. The detail required appears to exceed the notice pleading
standard in federal court.
73. This survey is not very useful. The multitude of problems which
charging parties face occur almost exclusively when they are proceeding
pro se, not when they are represented by counsel. In El Paso, the
investigators are overwhelmingly unqualified (can't even identify the
prima facie elements to claims, and have no clue how to investigate).
There is very little access and transparency, since the District
Director (out of Dallas), is more interested in closing files and
denying access to position statements, than he is in having his
investigators do their job.
190. Southern New Mexico is now assigned to El Paso, which has
caused many problems. We used to file in Albuquerque and they did a
great job. El Paso is slow and also frequently applies 5th Circuit law
it its analysis--but we're in the 10th. Also they have no discernable
relationship with New Mexico's state administrative agency. I hear many
complaints and wish they would change it back!
Kansas City Area Office
179. I file 90 percent of my client complaints with my state
agency. The Kansas Human Rights Commission investigative staff makes a
more thorough and timely investigation of complaints. I receive a
letter determination for each case with a case investigation report.
Then we seek review and/or a notice of suit rights from EEOC. I only
file with EEOC when my client is outside the 180 day period for filing
a state complaint.
Milwaukee Area Office
100. EEOC here very much resists letting attorneys draft their own
charges. They insist on intake interviews and will draft their own
charges or redraft a charge to suit themselves. We have seen some
turning away of attempts to file charges but whenever our state
affiliate hears of it, we get active. It comes in spurts.
159. Very, very slow investigation of a charge filed in October
2005. Lack of communication from investigator.
161. Iowa is a deferral state--so all processing is through the
Iowa State Civil Rights Commission. My problems with the EEOC all stem
at the end of the process--getting rights to sue.
Minneapolis Area Office
27. The only real problem we have with the EEOC is time. We have
had charges sit for over two years. Most of the time we will pull it
out and sue, but on class cases where the EEOC hinted we would get PC
we did not want to do that. Otherwise it has been mostly okay. We have
more problems with the state human rights department.
38. I have never had a charge not accepted. A few times in the past
two years I have had charges merely dismissed because the employer
denied the charges--a reason I find pretty outlandish to support a
dismissal of charge.
107. I have not had any problems with filing--I had a problem with
a no probable cause finding based on my client's refusal to accept an
unconditional offer of reinstatement--which goes to damages, not
liability.
160. I have received numerous reports from clients who came to me
after first visiting the EEOC where those clients were told they did
not have a claim or the intake person at the EEOC refused to prepare
and file a charge. Consequently, we have begun preparing the entire
charge, including the text, and filing that--which the EEOC has always
accepted without change. It's just when a charging party is
unrepresented and visits the EEOC first that resistance by the EEOC
occurs. Some investigators are more notorious than others. The intake
investigators are not attorneys but are making legal decisions. Of
course, this could be critical if the individual does not first see an
attorney or delays seeing an attorney until after the charging party's
deadline has passed.
Nashville Area Office
153. It takes about 9 months to a year for the EEOC to complete its
investigation. I don't know how that compares to other offices.
166. I have never had a problem but individuals have expressed to
me about 6 to 10 times over last 2 or 3 years that the EEOC intake
person said that they did not have claim and did not take a charge. I
do not know if it is true but I believe they must be discouraging
employees from filing charges.
Newark Area Office
54. Very slow follow-up on the part of the investigators. Lack of
good training or knowledge of the law by investigators, who routinely
reject cases that are then won in court or settled.
Pittsburgh Area Office
102. In my experience, the Pittsburgh office does an excellent job
processing charges no matter what is alleged. It will take the charge,
evaluate it as required and then make a decision. While I don't agree
with the decisions made, my experience is that they do not dismiss a
charge out of hand.
117. When charges are transferred from Pittsburgh to Cleveland, I
am not notified and at times when there is more than one Respondent,
not all the charges are transferred together.
Raleigh Area Office
12. I have not personally had any problems with the EEOC. However,
I am aware of several clients who have experienced problems with having
the EEOC accept their charges of discrimination and/or omit claims from
the charge that the EEOC prepared (which were clearly covered in the
intake questionnaire).
Buffalo Local Office
61. EEOC investigator objected to describing specific health
condition in ADA charge.
123. My comment is neither profound nor new. The EEOC has very
limited resources. The quality of a decent percentage of the
investigators is not terribly high. They do not require a college
degree and are being asked to evaluate issues that many lawyers outside
the employment field would not immediately get. If private counsel is
involved, my view is that they should either partner with them if the
agency is interested in the case or willing to help, or otherwise
simply stay out of the case so as not to mess stuff up. They should
concentrate their resources on good cases brought by those without an
attorney.
189. Office failed to respond to status inquiries for an extended
period of time and then refused to perform investigation.
Norfolk Local Office
126. The Norfolk EEOC office is WOEFULLY understaffed. Just over a
year ago the office had 12 investigators--it now has 5. EEOC personnel
are working valiantly, but there are simply not enough of them. My
clients are best protected from ``frivolous'' lawsuit claims by a cause
finding. Obtaining one, however, can take over a year.
Richmond Local Office
81. EEOC has done almost no meaningful investigation: no follow-up
after receipt of employer's position paper; no interest in contacting
witnesses, etc.
125. Once charges are filed, it is often months or even years
before anything is done or the charge is even assigned to an
investigator.
San Juan Local Office
184. Very high rate of ``no cause'' rulings without any
investigation.
Savannah Local Office
130. During reorganization last year, we were reassigned from the
Greenville, South Carolina office to the Savannah, Georgia office, and
have encountered some problems with filing, and some problems with one
particular investigator who did not conduct much of an investigation,
and sent the right to sue letter after several months directly to our
client's mother, despite the fact that I left a number of messages over
the course of 3 months, to which he never responded. It was clear on
our paperwork that we were her attorneys from the start. The Savannah
office does not seem to have been able to hire additional personnel,
despite having a significant portion of South Carolina added to their
region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Investment Company Institute
The Investment Company Institute appreciates this opportunity to
submit testimony to the Subcommittee in support of the Administration's
fiscal year 2008 Appropriations request for the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). We commend the Subcommittee for its consistent past
efforts to assure adequate resources for the SEC.
Mutual funds are an integral part of the U.S. economy and continue
to be one of America's primary savings and investment vehicles for
middle-income Americans. Since 1990, the percentage of U.S. retirement
assets held in mutual funds has more than quadrupled. Today, more than
96 million investors in nearly 55 million U.S. households own mutual
fund shares; the median household income of fund shareholders is
$68,700. These millions of ordinary Americans continue to recognize
that mutual funds are the best means of achieving their long-term
financial goals. They deserve and benefit from continued vigilant
regulatory oversight of mutual funds.
In addition to their role as the investment vehicle of choice for
millions of Americans, mutual funds are major investors in securities
and participants in the marketplace. As such, they have a strong
interest in assuring the SEC's continued ability to soundly and
effectively regulate securities offerings, other market participants,
and the markets themselves.
For all of these reasons, sufficient funding of the SEC is
critically important to the Institute and its members.
The Administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposes SEC funding
at a level of $905.3 million, which is a very slight increase from the
$904 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007. The SEC has determined
that this level provides it with adequate funding to fulfill its
regulatory mandate and to continue protecting the nation's investors.
Accordingly, the Institute urges Congress to provide appropriations at
this funding level.
We believe it is significant that the SEC has specifically
requested funding to allow it to continue to invest resources in
technology. We are particularly pleased that the top strategic
priorities for the SEC's Division of Investment Management include
revamping the mutual fund disclosure regime by making disclosures more
useful to investors through better use of new technologies, such as
interactive data tagging (XBRL) and the Internet. Division Director
Andrew Donohue recently outlined plans to develop a short-form
disclosure document for fund investors, which would be coupled with
giving investors the ability to obtain additional information via the
Internet or in paper form.\1\ As Director Donohue said, mutual fund
shareholders ``deserve a streamlined disclosure system that better
meets their needs and is consistent with the manner in which most
Americans retrieve and process information in the 21st century.'' We
agree, and we strongly support funding for these important initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speech by SEC Director of the Division of Investment Management
Andrew J. Donohue, Keynote Address at the 2007 ICI Mutual Funds and
Investment Management Conference, March 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While providing adequate funding is vitally important, it is
equally important that the SEC deploy available resources in ways
designed to assure the effectiveness of its regulatory and law
enforcement efforts. We therefore strongly support the continued focus
on internal reforms that will improve the performance of the SEC. This
includes, for example, providing regulatory guidance that better
anticipates issues, developing closer integration of the activities of
different SEC divisions and branch offices, implementing new inspection
strategies, and conducting empirical research that informs major
rulemakings. Indeed, the importance of these kinds of reforms has been
underscored in a series of recent reports.\2\ We support appropriate
funding of the SEC to facilitate these and other initiatives to enhance
the effectiveness of the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Interim Report of the Committee on Capital Markets
Regulation (November 30, 2006, as revised on December 5, 2006); Report
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Commission on the Regulation of U.S.
Capital Markets in the 21st Century (March 2007); and Sustaining New
York's and the U.S.' Global Financial Services Leadership (January
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the SEC and the fund industry share a common
objective of assuring that mutual funds remain a vibrant, competitive
and cost effective way for average Americans to access the securities
markets and realize their long-term financial goals. Future regulatory
and oversight actions by the SEC will play a key part in this process.
It is therefore critically important that the SEC have sufficient
resources to enable it to be an effective and efficient regulator and
fulfill its mission of protecting the nation's investors, including the
more than 91 million Americans who own mutual funds. Accordingly, we
support providing the SEC with the requested level of funding.
We appreciate your consideration of our views.
The Investment Company Institute is the national association of
American investment companies. ICI members include 8,821 open-end
investment companies (mutual funds), 664 closed-end investment
companies, 385 exchange-traded funds, and 4 sponsors of unit investment
trusts. Mutual fund members of the ICI have total assets of
approximately $10.481 trillion (representing 98 percent of all assets
of U.S. funds); these funds serve approximately 93.9 million
shareholders in more than 53.8 million households.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union
Chairman Durbin, ranking member Brownback, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for allowing me
to provide comments on the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget
request for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As President of the
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of
representing over 150,000 Federal workers in 30 agencies including the
men and women at the IRS.
irs fiscal year 2008 budget request
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the IRS budget forms the foundation for
what the IRS can provide to taxpayers in terms of customer service and
how the agency can best fulfill its tax enforcement mission. Without an
adequate budget, the IRS cannot expect continued improvement in
customer service performance ratings and will be hampered in its effort
to enhance taxpayer compliance. I would like to applaud the
administration for acknowledging in its fiscal year 2008 Budget in
Brief (page 65) that ``assisting the public to understand their tax
reporting and payment obligations is the cornerstone of taxpayer
compliance and is vital for maintaining public confidence in the tax
system.'' However, I was disappointed in the administration for failing
to request a budget for fiscal year 2008 that meets the needs of the
Agency to meet its customer service and enforcement challenges. In
fact, the President's budget anticipates a ``savings'' equal to nearly
1,200 full-time equivalent positions, including 1,147 in enforcement
and taxpayer service programs.
Although it's widely recognized that additional funding for
enforcement provides a great return on the investment, the
administration seems reluctant to request an adequate budget for the
IRS. In addition, despite citing a lack of resources as the primary
rationale for contracting out a number of inherently governmental
activities, such as the collection of taxes, the Commissioner of the
IRS has told Congress that the IRS does not need any additional funding
above the President's budget request.
NTEU believes that Congress must provide the IRS with a budget that
will allow the Service to replenish the depleted workforce,
particularly with respect to enforcement personnel.
History has shown that the IRS has the expertise to improve
taxpayer compliance but lacks the necessary personnel and resources.
The President's own fiscal 2008 budget proposal trumpets the increased
tax collections produced by IRS's own employees and cites the increased
collections of delinquent tax debt from $34 billion in 2002 to $49
billion in 2006, an increase of 44 percent. Unfortunately, instead of
providing additional resources to hire more enforcement staff, IRS
personnel resources have been slashed in recent years resulting in a 36
percent decline in combined collection and examination function
enforcement staff between 1996 and 2003. In addition, these staffing
cuts have come at a time when the IRS workload has dramatically
increased.
According to IRS's own annual reports and data, taxpayers filed
114.6 million returns in 1995. After a steady annual climb, 11 years
later, the Service saw more than 132 million returns filed. Yet,
between 1995 and 2005, total numbers of IRS employees shrunk from
114,000 to 94,000. Even more alarming is that during that period,
revenue officers and revenue agents--two groups critical to IRS
enforcement and compliance efforts--shrunk by 32 and 23 percent
respectively. Revenue officers who collect large delinquent accounts
went from 8,139 to 5,462 and revenue agents who do audits fell from
16,078 to 12,355. Unfortunately, instead of reversing this trend, the
IRS has continued efforts to reduce its workforce and has moved forward
with downsizing in several different areas which have targeted some of
the Service's most productive employees.
These include last year's re-organization of the Estate and Gift
Tax Program which sought the elimination of 157 of the agency's 345
estate and gift tax attorneys--almost half of the agency's estate tax
lawyers--who audit some of the wealthiest Americans. The Service
pursued this drastic course of action despite internal data showing
that estate and gift attorneys are among the most productive
enforcement personnel at the IRS, collecting $2,200 in taxes for each
hour of work.
The IRS decision to drastically reduce the number of attorneys in
the estate and gift tax area flies in the face of several reports made
to Congress by Treasury and IRS officials over the past few years,
indicating that tax evasion and cheating among the highest-income
Americans is a serious and growing problem. In fact, an IRS study found
that in 1999, more than 80 percent of the 1,651 tax returns reporting
gifts of $1 million or more that were audited that year understated the
value of the gift. The study found that the average understatement was
about $303,000, on which about $167,000 in additional gift taxes was
due. This alone cost the government about $275 million. Consequently,
it is difficult to understand why the IRS sought the elimination of key
workforce positions in an area that could produce significant revenue
to the general treasury.
In addition, the Service continues to move forward with its plan to
close five of its ten paper tax return submission facilities by 2011.
The IRS originally sought the closings of the five paper return
submission centers due to the rise in the use of electronic filing (e-
filing) and in order to comply with the IRS Restructuring and Reform
Act of 1998 (RRA 98) which established a goal for the IRS to have 80
percent of Federal tax and information returns filed electronically by
2007. But in their recent report to Congress on e-filing, the IRS
Oversight Board noted that the IRS will fall well short of the 80
percent goal and urged Congress to extend the deadline to 2012. The
report noted that in 2006 just 54 percent of individuals e-filed their
returns, well short of the 80 percent goal. Furthermore, the report
cited a decline in 2006 in the number of e-file returns received from
individual taxpayers who self-prepared their taxes. And finally a
recent GAO report on the 2006 filing season noted the year over year
percentage growth in individual e-filing slowed to a level lower than
any of the previous 3 years.
While overall use of e-filing may be on the rise, the number of
taxpayers opting to use this type of return is not increasing as
rapidly as the IRS had originally projected. Combined with the fact
that almost a third of American taxpayers do not even have internet
access and changes to the IRS Free File Program that are expected to
increase the number of paper filing returns, it is clear that paper
submission processing facilities are still necessary and that serious
thought and consideration must be given before any additional closings
are undertaken.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that drastic reductions in some of the
agency's most productive tax law enforcement employees directly
contradict the Service's stated enforcement priority to discourage and
deter non-compliance, particularly among high-income individuals. In
addition, we believe these staffing cuts have greatly undermined agency
efforts to close the tax gap which the IRS recently estimated at $345
billion. As Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate noted, this
amounts to a per-taxpayer ``surtax'' of some $2,600 per year to
subsidize noncompliance. And while the agency has made small inroads
and the overall compliance rate through the voluntary compliance system
remains high, much more can and should be done. NTEU believes that in
order to close the tax gap, the IRS needs additional employees on the
frontlines of tax compliance and customer service. In addition, we
believe Congress should establish a dedicated funding stream to provide
adequate resources for those employees.
nteu staffing proposal
In order to address the staffing shortage at the IRS, NTEU supports
a 2 percent annual net increase in staffing (roughly 1,885 positions
per year) over a 5-year period to gradually rebuild the depleted IRS
workforce to pre-1998 levels. A similar idea was proposed by former IRS
Commissioner Charles Rossotti in a 2002 report to the IRS Oversight
Board. In the report, Rossotti quantified the workload gap in non-
compliance, that is, the number of cases that should have been, but
could not be acted upon because of resource limitations. Rossotti
pointed out that in the area of known tax debts, assigning additional
employees to collection work could bring in roughly $30 for every $1
spent. The Rossotti report recognized the importance of increased IRS
staffing noting that due to the continued growth in IRS' workload
(averaging about 1.5 to 2.0 percent per year) and the large accumulated
increase in work that should be done but could not be, even aggressive
productivity growth could not possibly close the compliance gap.
Rossotti also recognized that for this approach to work, the budget
must provide for a net increase in staffing on a sustained yearly basis
and not take a ``one time approach.''
Although this would require a substantial financial commitment, the
potential for increasing revenues, enhancing compliance and shrinking
the tax gap makes it very sound budget policy. One option for funding a
new staffing initiative would be to allow the IRS to hire personnel
off-budget, or outside of the ordinary budget process. This is not
unprecedented. In fact, Congress took exactly the same approach to
funding in 1994 when Congress provided funding for the administration's
IRS Tax Compliance Initiative which sought the addition of 5,000
compliance positions for the IRS. The initiative was expected to
generate in excess of $9 billion in new revenue over 5 years while
spending only about $2 billion during the same period. Because of the
initiative's potential to dramatically increase Federal revenue,
spending for the positions was not considered in calculating
appropriations that must come within annual caps.
A second option for providing funding to hire additional IRS
personnel outside the ordinary budget process could be to allow IRS to
retain a small portion of the revenue it collects. The statute that
gives the IRS the authority to use private collection companies to
collect taxes allows 25 percent of collected revenue to be returned to
the companies as payment, thereby circumventing the appropriations
process altogether. Clearly, there is nothing magical about revenues
collected by private collection companies. If those revenues can be
dedicated directly to contract payments, there is no reason some small
portion of other revenues collected by the IRS could not be dedicated
to funding additional staff positions to strengthen enforcement.
While NTEU agrees with IRS' stated goal of enhancing tax compliance
and enforcement, we don't agree with the approach of sacrificing
taxpayer service in order to pay for additional compliance efforts.
That is why we were disappointed to see that the President's proposed
budget calls for the elimination of 527 taxpayer services positions.
NTEU believes providing quality services to taxpayers is an important
part of any overall strategy to improve compliance and that reducing
the number of employees dedicated to assisting taxpayers meet their
obligations will only those efforts. The administration's own budget
proposal for 2008 notes that in fiscal year 2006, IRS' customer
assistance centers answered almost 33 million assistor telephone calls
and met the 82 percent level of service goal, with an accuracy rate of
91 percent for tax law questions. In addition, a recent study
commissioned by the Oversight Board found that more than 80 percent of
taxpayers contacted said that IRS service was better than or equal to
service from other government agencies. And while these numbers show
that IRS taxpayer services are being effective, more can and should be
done.
Mr. Chairman, in order to continue to make improvements in taxpayer
services while simultaneously processing a growing number of tax
returns and stabilizing collections and examinations of cases, it is
imperative to reverse the severe cuts in IRS staffing levels and begin
providing adequate resources to meet these challenges. With the future
workload expected to continue to rise, the IRS will be under a great
deal of pressure to improve customer service standards while
simultaneously enforcing the Nation's tax laws. NTEU strongly believes
that providing additional staffing resources would permit IRS to meet
the rising workload level, stabilize and strengthen tax compliance and
customer service programs and allow the Service to address the tax gap
in a serious and meaningful way.
span of control
And while it is imperative that Congress provide the IRS with
sufficient staffing resources, we also believe that the IRS should look
at the management to bargaining unit employee ratio to find additional
resources for increased frontline tax compliance efforts. As noted
previously, while the number of employees at the IRS has decreased by
almost 20,000 since 1995, the number of managers who supervise these
employees has increased over this same period. If we just look at the
period between 2000 and 2005, we see that the number of bargaining unit
employees, the frontline employees who do the work, decreased by 4,756,
a decrease of 5.1 percent. During that same time, the number of
managers and management officials increased by 170, an increase of 1
percent. If the IRS decreased the number of managers and management
officials at the same rate as it decreased its rank and file employees
during that period, there would be 5.1 percent fewer managers and
management officials or a savings of 808 full time equivalents (FTE's)
that could be saved and redirected to the frontlines. While the IRS has
previously cited concerns about the number of employees that would have
to be taken offline to train additional frontline employees, we believe
this training could be done with minimal disruption to current
operations. One possibility would be to use the increasing number of
managers and management officials to do the training. This would ensure
that these employees are afforded the best possible training while
allowing current operations to continue to run efficiently.
private tax collection
Mr. Chairman, as stated previously, if provided the necessary
resources, IRS employees have the expertise and knowledge to ensure
taxpayers are complying with their tax obligations. That is why NTEU
continues to strongly oppose the administration's private tax
collection program, which began in September of last year. Under the
program, the IRS is permitted to hire private sector tax collectors to
collect delinquent tax debt from taxpayers and pay them a bounty of up
to 25 percent of the money they collect. NTEU believes this misguided
proposal is a waste of taxpayer's dollars, invites overly aggressive
collection techniques, jeopardizes the financial privacy of American
taxpayers and may ultimately serve to undermine efforts to close the
tax gap.
NTEU strongly believes the collection of taxes is an inherently
governmental function that should be restricted to properly trained and
proficient IRS personnel. When supported with the tools and resources
they need to do their jobs, there is no one who is more reliable and
who can do the work of the IRS better than IRS employees.
As you may know, under current contracts, private collection firms
are eligible to retain 21 percent to 24 percent of what they collect,
depending on the size of the case. In testimony before Congress, former
IRS Commissioner Mark Everson repeatedly acknowledged that using
private collection companies to collect Federal taxes will be more
expensive than having the IRS do the work itself. The Commissioner's
admission directly contradicts one the administration's central
justifications for using private collection agencies--that the use of
private collectors is cost efficient and effective.
In addition to being fiscally unsound, the idea of allowing private
collection agencies to collect tax debt on a commission basis also
flies in the face of the tenets of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998. Section 1204 of the law specifically prevents employees or
supervisors at the IRS from being evaluated on the amount of
collections they bring in. But now, the IRS has agreed to pay private
collection agencies out of their tax collection proceeds, which will
clearly encourage overly aggressive tax collection techniques, the
exact dynamic the 1998 law sought to avoid. Furthermore, the IRS is
turning over tax collection responsibilities to an industry that has a
long record of abuse. For example, in 2006, consumer complaints about
third-party debt collectors increased both in absolute terms and as a
percentage of all complaints that consumers filed with the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC). Last year the FTC received 69,204 consumer
complaints about debt collection agencies--giving debt collectors the
impressive title of the FTC's most complained-about industry.
NTEU believes that a better option would be to provide the IRS with
the resources and staffing it needs. There is no doubt that IRS
employees are--by far--the most reliable, cost-effective means for
collecting Federal income taxes. As noted previously, the former IRS
Commissioner himself has admitted that using IRS employees to collect
unpaid tax debts is more efficient than using private collectors. In
addition, the 2002 budget report submitted to the IRS Oversight Board,
former Commissioner Charles Rossotti made clear that with more
resources to increase IRS staffing, the IRS would be able to close the
compliance gap.
This is not the first time the IRS has tried this flawed program.
Two pilot projects were authorized by Congress to test private
collection of tax debt for 1996 and 1997. The 1996 pilot was so
unsuccessful it was cancelled after 12 months, despite the fact it was
authorized and scheduled to operate for 2 years. A subsequent review by
the IRS Office of Inspector General found that contractors
participating in the pilot programs regularly violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, did not adequately protect the security of
personal taxpayer information, and even failed to bring in a net
increase in revenue. In fact, a 1997 GAO report found that private
companies did not bring in anywhere near the dollars projected, and the
pilot caused a $17 million net loss.
Despite IRS assurances that it has learned from its past mistakes,
two recent reports indicate otherwise. A March 2004 report by the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration raised a number of
questions about IRS' contract administration and oversight of
contractors. The report found that ``a contractor's employees committed
numerous security violations that placed IRS equipment and taxpayer
data at risk'' and in some cases, ``contractors blatantly circumvented
IRS policies and procedures even when security personnel identified
inappropriate practices.'' (TIGTA Audit #200320010). The proliferation
of security breaches at a number of government agencies that put
personal information at risk further argue against this proposal. These
security breaches illustrate not only the risks associated with
collecting and disseminating large amounts of electronic personal
information, but the risk of harm or injury to consumers from identity
theft crimes.
In addition, a September 2006 examination of the IRS private
collection program by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reveals that like the 1996 pilot, the program may actually lose money
by the scheduled conclusion of the program's initial phase in December
2007. The report cited preliminary IRS data showing that the agency
expects to collect as little as $56 million through the end of 2007,
while initial program costs are expected to surpass $61 million. What's
more, the projected costs do not even include the 21-24 percent
commission fees paid to the collection agencies directly from the taxes
they collect.
In addition to the direct costs of the program, I am greatly
concerned about the potential negative effect that the private tax
collection program will have on our tax administration system. In her
recent report to Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate voiced
similar concern about the unintended consequences of privatizing tax
collection. Olson cited a number of ``hidden costs'' that private tax
collection has on the tax system including reduced transparency of IRS
tax collection operations, inconsistent treatment for similarly
situated taxpayers, and reduced tax compliance. Clearly the negative
effects of contracting out tax collection to private collectors hampers
the agency's ability to improve taxpayer compliance and will only serve
to undermine future efforts to close the tax gap.
NTEU is not alone in its opposition to the IRS' plan. Similar
proposals allowing private collection agencies to collect taxes on a
commission basis have been around for a long time and have consistently
been opposed by both parties. In fact, the Reagan Administration
strongly opposed the concept of privatizing tax collections warning of
a considerable adverse public reaction to such a plan, and emphasizing
the importance of not compromising the integrity of the tax system.
(Treasury Dept. Statement to House Judiciary Comm. 8/8/86). More
recently, opposition to the private tax collection program has been
voiced by a growing number of members of Congress, major public
interest groups, tax experts, as well as the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, a
volunteer Federal advisory group--whose members are appointed by the
IRS and the Treasury Department. In addition, the National Taxpayer
Advocate, an independent official within the IRS recently identified
the IRS private tax collection initiative as one of the most serious
problems facing taxpayers and called on Congress to immediately repeal
the IRS' authority to outsource tax collection work to private debt
collectors (National Taxpayer Advocate 2006 Report to Congress).
Instead of rushing to privatize tax collection functions which
jeopardizes taxpayer information, reduces potential revenue for the
Federal Government and undermine efforts to close the tax gap, the IRS
should increase compliance staffing levels at the IRS to ensure that
the collection of taxes is restricted to properly trained and
proficient IRS personnel.
irs audits of high-income individuals and large businesses and
corporations
Mr. Chairman, the final issue that I would like to discuss is IRS
enforcement efforts with regard to high-income individuals and large
businesses and corporations. I previously noted the drastic staff
reductions in the estate and gift tax division that occurred last year
and will obviously hamper the Service's ability to achieve greater
compliance from the wealthiest Americans. In addition, recent IRS data
shows that IRS audits of high-income individuals have dropped
dramatically over the past decade. The audit rate for face-to-face
audits fell from 2.9 percent of high-income tax filers in fiscal year
1992 to 0.38 percent in fiscal year 2001 and then drifted down to 0.35
percent in fiscal year 2004. While the audit rate has rebounded
somewhat in the last 2 years, it is still far below the level of the
mid-1990's. These facts seem to directly contradict claims by the IRS
that the Service's first enforcement priority is to discourage and
deter non-compliance, with an emphasis on high-income individuals.
We are seeing similar troubling trends with respect to large
corporations. While this issue has just started receiving public
attention in recent weeks, it has long been of concern to IRS employees
that believe recent IRS currency and cycle time initiatives are
resulting in the premature closing of audits of large companies,
possibly leaving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes owed on the
table. IRS data shows the thoroughness of IRS enforcement efforts for
the Nation's largest corporations--measured by the number of hours
devoted to each audit--has substantially declined since fiscal year
2002. IRS data also show that the annual audit rates for these
corporations, all with assets of $250 million or more, while increasing
in fiscal year 2004 and 2005, receded in 2006 to about the level it was
in 2002 and is much lower than levels that prevailed a decade or more
ago.
Although the number of the largest corporations is small, they are
a very significant presence in the American economy. In fiscal year
2002, the largest corporations were responsible for almost 75 percent
of all additional taxes the IRS auditors said were owed the government.
By comparison, low and middle income taxpayers in the same year were
responsible for less than 10 percent of the total.
Agency data shows that audit attention given those corporations
with $250 million or more in assets has substantially declined in the
last 5 years. In 2002, an average of 1,210 hours were devoted to each
of the audits of the corporations in this category. The time devoted to
each audit dropped sharply in 2004 and by 2006 the number of hours per
audit remained 20 percent below what it was in 2002.
But what may be most disturbing is that according to IRS' own data,
while the coverage rate of large corporation returns (identified as
those with assets of $10 million and higher) increased in fiscal year
2004 and 2005, the number of audits for these corporations actually
decreased in 2006. Clearly, the rationale the IRS is using to justify a
reduction in time and scope of large corporation audits, that is, to
allow for expanding the total number of companies audited is not
working.
IRS officials have continued to point to a rise in additional tax
recommended for each hour of audit as a sign that the policy is
working, but most auditors know that this rise can be primarily
attributed to the proliferation of illegal tax shelters which makes it
easier to find additional taxes due.
Warnings about the potential negative consequences of such policy
decisions were made by a number of IRS employees in a recent New York
Times article and are not new. In fact, when the IRS first began
limiting the time and scope of business audits through implementation
of the Limited Issue Focused Examination (LIFE) process in 2002, the
former chief counsel of the IRS said that the IRS' proposed reductions
in cycle time of corporate audits would ``virtually guarantee that IRS
auditors would miss tax dodges, fail to explore suspicious
transactions, or even walk away from audits that are on the verge of
finding wrongdoing.''
In addition, IRS employees have raised concerns about this shift in
approach to the auditing of business tax returns since its
implementation several years ago. Their concerns are multi-fold.
Primarily, employees' feel that their experience and professional
judgment is being ignored when the scope of audits is limited and cycle
times are reduced. Revenue agents need flexibility to determine the
scope of an audit and need the ability to expand the examination time
when necessary. The men and women of the IRS that perform these audits
are highly experienced employees who know which issues to examine and
when more time is necessary on a case. But under current IRS policies,
this is just not the case.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard directly from a number of our members
about the detrimental effect this policy has had not just on efforts to
ensure corporations are in full compliance, but also how this misguided
policy is damaging employee morale. In one instance, an IRS agent with
29 years of experience, including 19 as an international specialist
examining tax returns of large, multinational corporations was given an
unreasonably short period of time to examine 3 tax years of a very
large company. The agent reported being constantly harassed for
refusing to further limit the scope of the examination beyond that
which was set at the beginning of the audit, even though he had
successfully completed two prior examinations of the same taxpayer in a
timely manner. The employee knew the issues and how to examine them but
also knew they would need more than the allotted time to complete his
part of the examination. But, despite past successes, management
refused to provide the employee with additional time to complete his
portion of the audit and labeled the employee as uncooperative and not
a ``team player.'' Although the employee refused to compromise, he
believed that other members of the examination team had been pressured
into dropping issues which likely would have resulted in additional
tax.
Mr. Chairman, in the face of a rising tax gap and exploding Federal
deficits, it is imperative that the agency is provided with the
necessary resources to allow IRS professionals to pursue each and every
dollar of the taxes owed by large businesses and corporations. Allowing
these corporations to pay just a fraction of what they owe in taxes
greatly hinders efforts to close the tax gap and is fundamentally
unfair to the millions of ordinary taxpayers that dutifully pay their
taxes. Only by increasing the overall number of IRS employees that do
this work can the Service ensure that businesses and large corporations
are complying with their tax obligations and that the tax gap is being
closed.
conclusion
It is an indisputable fact that the IRS workforce is getting mixed
signals regarding its value to the mission of the Service and the level
of workforce investment the Service is willing to make. NTEU believes
that the drastic reductions of some of the IRS's most productive
employees, reliance on outside contractors to handle inherently
governmental activities such as the collection of taxes, and a shift in
philosophy which focuses enforcement efforts too much on wage earners
and not enough on high-income individuals and large businesses and
corporations, only serve to undermine the agency's ability to fulfill
its tax enforcement mission and hamper efforts to close the tax gap.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
Mr. Chairman, my name is Roland Rousseau and I serve as an
alternate commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and the
chair of the Budget Committee for the U.S. section of the Commission.
The Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty) between the United States and Canada
was established in 1985. An subsequent agreement was concluded in June
of 1999 (1999 agreement) that established new abundance-based fishing
regimes under the treaty and made other improvements in the treaty's
structure. During fiscal year 2008, the PSC will conduct very important
negotiations to renew provisions of treaty fishing regimes that are
scheduled to expire at the end of 2008. The U.S. section recommends
that Congress:
For Department of Commerce:
--Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty line item of the National Marine
Fisheries Service at $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, restoring
$1,000,000 previously provided by Congress. This funding
provides the technical support for the States of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon and Idaho and the National Marine Fisheries
Service to conduct the salmon stock assessment and fishery
management programs required to implement the treaty fishing
regimes. Included within the total amount of $8,000,000 is
$400,000 to continue a joint Transboundary River Enhancement
Program required by the treaty.
--Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Salmon Agreement line item
of the National Marine Fisheries Service for fiscal year 2008
at $1,844,000, level funding from what was provided by Congress
for fiscal year 2006. This funding continues to be necessary to
acquire the technical information to implement abundance-based
Chinook salmon management provided for under the 1999
agreement.
For Department of State fund the PSC at $3,049,000, under
International Fisheries Commission, Department of State. This is
approximate level funding from that provided in fiscal year 2006 to
fund the bilateral PSC office and staff, and to support U.S. section
activities required to implement provisions of the treaty. Funding for
the total International Fisheries Commission line item should be
$24,000,000, the funding level for fiscal year 2006, to provide full
funding for the operations of all the fishery commissions, including
the PSC.
The base treaty implementation projects include a wide range of
stock assessment, fishery monitoring, and technical support activities
for all five species of Pacific salmon in the fisheries and rivers from
Southeast Alaska to those of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The States
of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), are charged with carrying out major portions
of the salmon fishery stock assessment and harvest management actions
required under the treaty. Federal funding for these activities is
provided through NMFS on an annual basis. The agency projects carried
out under PSC funding are directed toward acquiring, analyzing, and
sharing the information required to implement the salmon conservation
and sharing principles of the treaty. A wide range of programs for
salmon stock size assessments, escapement enumeration, stock
distribution, and catch and effort information from fisheries, are
represented. The information from many of these programs is used
directly to establish fishing seasons and harvest levels. Congress
increased this funding by $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to a total of
$8,000,000 to provide for programs needed to implement the new
abundance-based fishing regimes established under the 1999 agreement,
but the level was reduced to $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2006. The U.S.
section recommends that $8,000,000 be restored in fiscal year 2008 to
allow full implementation of treaty provisions. The 1999 agreement
updated provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty including fishing
arrangements and abundance-based management approaches for Chinook,
southern coho, Northern Boundary and Transboundary River fisheries. The
$400,000 that has been provided since 1988 for a joint Transboundary
River enhancement program with Canada is included in this amount.
In 1996, the United States adopted an abundance-based approach to
managing Chinook salmon fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Under this
approach, Chinook harvest levels are based on annual estimates of
Chinook abundance. This system replaced fixed harvest ceilings agreed
to in 1985, which did not respond to annual fluctuations in Chinook
salmon populations. The revised 1999 agreement adopted this abundance-
based management approach for all Chinook fisheries subject to the
treaty. In recognition of this new management approach, since 1998,
Congress has provided $1,844,000 annually to allow for the collection
of stock assessment and fishery management information necessary for
implementation. Through a rigorous competitive technical review
process, the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the
24 treaty tribes are using the funding to implement abundance-based
Chinook salmon management coast-wide under the new agreement. The U.S.
section recommends level funding of $1,844,000 for fiscal year 2008 to
support the implementation of abundance-based Chinook salmon
management.
The United States and Canada agreed in 1988 to a joint salmon
enhancement program on the Transboundary Rivers, which rise in Canada
and flow to the sea through Southeast Alaska. Since 1989, Congress has
provided $400,000 annually for this effort through the National Marine
Fisheries Service International Fisheries Commission line item under
the Conservation and Management Operations activity. Canada provides an
equal amount of funding and support for this bilateral program. This
funding is included in the $8,000,000 the U.S. section is recommending
for the fiscal year 2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty line item.
The U.S. section of the PSC recommends that $3,049,000 for
implementation of the treaty be provided in the Department of State's
International Fisheries Commissions line item in fiscal year 2008. This
is $20,000 more than the amount provided by Congress for fiscal year
2006 and is vitally needed to support U.S. commitments made in the 1999
agreement and support costs for U.S. section participation. This
funding provides for the United States contribution to the bilateral
PSC staff and offices based in Vancouver, British Columbia. It also
provides for travel for U.S. commissioners, panel members, and
technical committee members and stipends for authorized commissioners
and panel members. Increasing travel costs, less favorable currency
exchange rates with Canada and increased costs associated with the
renegotiation of fishing regimes that will be in progress during fiscal
year 2008, make it very important that this funding is available to
support PSC operations.
This concludes the statement of the U.S. section of the PSC
submitted for consideration by your committee. We wish to thank the
committee for the support that it has given us in the past.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE UNITED STATES-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2006 2008 Section
Appropriation Recommendation Shortfall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Commerce:
Pacific Salmon Treaty Line Item............................. $7,000,000 \1\ $8,000,000 $1,000,000
Pacific Salmon Treaty--Chinook Salmon Agreement Line Item... 1,844,000 1,844,000 ..............
Department of State: International Fisheries Commissions: 3,029,000 3,049,000 20,000
Pacific Salmon Commission......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The recommended fiscal year 2008 amount includes $400,000 provided for the Joint Transboundary River
Enhancement Program previously funded under the NMFS International Fisheries Commission account.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Astronomical Society
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on NASA's 2008 science
budget from my perspective as president of the American Astronomical
Society (AAS).
The AAS believes that NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD)
should be part of the American innovation agenda, which seeks to
bolster funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). These agencies have been
identified as vital to America's leadership in innovation, by training
a highly-skilled workforce and fostering the discovery and development
of new ideas. NASA science is a partner in these endeavors.
Specifically, we advocate for increasing NASA SMD's fiscal year 2008
budget to $5.566 billion, which is 6 percent over the final fiscal year
2007 amount and a modest increase over the President's fiscal year 2008
request.
The AAS is the major organization of professional astronomers in
the United States. The basic objective of the AAS is to promote the
advancement of astronomy and closely related branches of science. The
membership, numbering approximately 7,000, includes physicists,
mathematicians, geologists, and engineers whose interests lie within
the broad spectrum of modern astronomy. AAS members advise NASA on
scientific priorities, participate in NASA missions, and use the data
from NASA's outstanding scientific discoveries to build a coherent
picture for the origin and evolution of the Earth, the solar system,
our galaxy, and the universe as a whole.
In the recent past, the astronomical community, working together
with NASA, has produced a remarkable string of successes that have
changed our basic picture of the universe. Observations with the Hubble
Space Telescope (HST) of exploding stars whose light has been traveling
for half the age of the universe, combined with the exquisite map of
the glow from the big bang itself from the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe and information from other observatories, shows that
the universe we live in is not the universe we see. Mysterious dark
matter makes the ordinary particles clump together to form stars and
galaxies. Even more mysterious dark energy makes the expansion of the
universe speed up. Both of these concepts challenge our understanding
of the nature of matter and energy in the universe and open up broad
new vistas for future work. An ambitious set of great observatories,
now including Spitzer in the infrared and Chandra at X-ray wavelengths,
is hard at work, enriching our understanding of how the universe works.
Similarly, exploration of the solar system has been a resounding
success for NASA, with exciting missions to Mars and to Saturn
revealing a beautiful and intricate history that is interwoven with the
history of our planet Earth. The discovery of planets around other
stars has been a great triumph of the past decade, raising hopes for
seeing planets like our own Earth, and placing our own solar system,
and life itself, in a new context.
NASA's key role in these discoveries makes its science program of
deep interest to AAS members. In the past, NASA has worked with the
astronomical community to find the most promising paths forward. The
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a large program that was endorsed
by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Decadal Survey in astronomy.
When completed in the next decade, it will help expand the frontier of
knowledge to the deepest reaches of space and time and into the hidden
places where stars and planets are formed. The astronomical community
also recommended, and NASA plans to execute, a wide range of other
programs--some of moderate scope and others that nourish the
infrastructure for a healthy and vibrant community. This balanced
approach has proved best--with a range of opportunities carefully
crafted to get the best science from NASA's science budget.
Recognizing the current challenging budget climate, in which
federal non-security, discretionary spending is declining by about 1
percent, the current NASA budget for science is nonetheless cause for
concern. The continuing resolution (CR), now Public Law 110-005,
provided funding for many federal agencies including NASA for fiscal
year 2007. NASA science has suffered a $78.8 million shortfall from the
President's fiscal year 2007 request. The President's fiscal year 2008
budget request represents a 0.9 percent increase in NASA science
spending over the fiscal year 2007 request; however, with inflation
currently around 2 percent, the fiscal year 2008 request still
represents a decline in real dollars available for research in science
compared to the President's fiscal year 2007 request. A key question is
what will become the new baseline for NASA science funding, the fiscal
year 2007 request or the CR. If the CR is adopted as the new baseline,
this could represent a loss to NASA science in the out-years of $1
billion or more.
The AAS therefore recommends that Congress increase the fiscal year
2008 budget for NASA science by 6 percent over the CR level. This
modest increase over the President's fiscal year 2008 request will help
maintain balance within the science portfolio, which is critical to our
community. It is important to support small missions and research
grants to individual investigators. Otherwise, many exciting programs
to explore the solar system, to detect planets around other stars, to
measure gravitational waves from astronomical events, to explore black
holes in all their manifestations, and to seek the nature of the dark
energy may be threatened. In particular, we advocate for restoring
funding to the Explorer program and protecting the Beyond Einstein
mission.
We further advocate that NASA science should be part of the
American innovation agenda. Maintaining and strengthening American
innovation in science and technology has broad bipartisan support, both
in Congress and the administration. Our recommended increase of 6
percent in NASA science is smaller than the increases proposed for the
science component of other agencies identified as strategically
important for innovation. These include an 8.7 percent increase for
NSF, a 16 percent increase for Department of Energy's Office of
science, and nearly 21 percent for NIST (all increases over the CR
levels). For AAS members, the cuts in NASA's support for science
threaten to offset or overwhelm the increases that have been aimed at
improving America's innovation through the NSF, DOE, and NIST. A real
effort to improve science and engineering in the United States should
treat NASA's science program as part of the solution. NASA's science
missions inspire new generations of young people to pursue careers in
science, engineering, and mathematics and train these students and
young scientists to become the innovators of the future.
Finally, the AAS applauds the administration and Congress for
upholding the priorities of the NAS Decadal Survey in astronomy. We are
pleased that the development of JWST and HST servicing mission are
priorities in the new budget, but we stress that balance is critical in
the science portfolio.
NASA science has been and continues to be a beacon of innovation
and discovery by inspiring generations of young people, capturing the
imagination of the public, developing new technologies, and discovering
profound insights into the nature of our universe.
The AAS and its members are prepared to work with Congress and with
NASA to help find the best way forward. We will give you our best
advice and we will work diligently to make the most of NASA's
investment in science.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2008 funding
request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). The
Foundation respectfully requests that the committee fund these efforts
at the following levels: $4 million through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration appropriation.
This request lies well within the authorized levels and will allow
the Foundation to better meet the demand for new or expanded strategic
conservation programs. The appropriations provided by the committee are
also used by the Foundation to attract additional funding for
conservation projects through mitigation, settlements, and direct
gifts.
These dollars will be focused on mutually agreed upon projects
across the country. Furthermore, the appropriated $4 million will be
turned into a minimum of $8 million, according to the Foundation's
Congressional Charter which requires a minimum of a 1-to-1 match. We
have been operating on a 3-to-1 match historically, which means that
the $4 million has the potential to become $16 million or more for on-
the-ground and in-the-water conservation. One other note of special
interest is that according to the Foundation's charter, all directly
appropriated funds have to be obligated to grants as they are not
available to the Foundation for any direct or indirect expenses.
Since our inception in 1984 through fiscal year 2006, the
Foundation has supported over 8,865 grants and leveraged over $374
million in Federal funds for more than $1.2 billion in on-the-ground
conservation. This has resulted in more than 18.35 million acres of
restored and managed wildlife habitat; new hope for countless species
under stress; new models of private land stewardship; and stronger
education programs in schools and local communities. We recognize that
without the seed money this committee provides, many of these
conservation benefits would not be realized.
The federal dollars appropriated by this committee allow the
Foundation to assist NOAA in accomplishing its mission. Whether it
involves coastal-habitat conservation, species management, or
conservation education, the Foundation strategically invests the
federal funds entrusted to us in sound projects. This request would
allow the Foundation to expand its highly successful grant programs to
better assist NOAA in maximizing protection and restoration of marine
and coastal resources. Over the 14 years of the NOAA-Foundation
partnership, more than $47 million in NOAA funds have been leveraged to
produce over $142 million for on-the-ground and in-the-water
conservation. From 2002-2006, 788 projects have been awarded, focusing
on the conservation needs of at-risk species, habitat enhancement,
coastal restoration, marine debris clean-up, environmental education,
and community-based stewardship. With our fiscal year 2006 NOAA
appropriations, we were able to fund 39 projects, representing over
$1.4 million in Foundation federal funds, leveraging it with $8.4
million in other federal and non-federal funds to commit $9.8 million
for coastal and marine 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. Congress established the Foundation 23 years
ago, and since that time the Foundation's vision for more healthy and
abundant populations of fish, wildlife, and plants has flourished
through the creation of numerous valuable partnerships. The breadth of
our partnerships is highlighted through our active agreements with 14
federal agencies, as well as numerous corporations, foundations, and
individual grantees. Through these unique arrangements, we are able to
leverage federal funds, bring agencies and industry together, as well
as produce tangible, measurable results. Our history of collaboration
has given way to programs and initiatives such as the Chesapeake Bay
Small Watershed Grants Program, Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed
Grants, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Program, and the National Fish Habitat
Initiative. With the support of the committee in fiscal year 2008, we
can continue to uphold our mission of enriching fish, wildlife, and the
habitat on which they depend.
Working Marine and Coastal Habitats.--The Foundation and NOAA work
together to identify the highest priority coastal and marine
conservation projects to sustain, restore, and enhance marine and
coastal habitats, as well as increase populations of imperiled marine
species. Funds available through the NOAA/Foundation partnership seek
to achieve three specific objectives, through our Marine and Coastal
Life and Habitats Keystone Initiative. These three objectives include:
increase and sustain productivity of key spawning grounds and unique
marine habitats by reducing unintended human impacts; increase
populations of imperiled marine species; and improve and sustain the
health of the Nation's major estuaries and the Great Lakes by restoring
and protecting critical coastal habitat, improving water quality in
tributaries, and enhancing populations of keystone species.
Conserving Fish, Wildlife, and Plants.--The Foundation also
administers several programs which are directed to specific species or
habitats and which are administered to rally private donations and
contributions from other agencies around these strategic focus areas.
Examples of such programs include: the Marine Debris Prevention and
Removal Program, the Coral Reef Conservation Fund, the National Whale
Conservation Fund, the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program,
the Pacific Grassroots Salmon Initiative, the Delaware Estuary Grants
Program, and the Pinellas County Environmental Fund.
--Coral Reef Conservation Fund.--Responding to an alarming decline in
both the quantity and productive quality of the world's coral
reef ecosystems, the Foundation partnered with NOAA to
establish the Coral Reef Conservation Fund. Through this fund,
the Foundation supports local to ecosystem level projects that
restore damaged reef systems and prevent further negative
impacts through both on-the-water and up-the-watershed
projects. By focusing on specific areas of human impact such as
anchor damage and sedimentation, we maximize the outcome of our
programs. The Foundation has provided funding for over 166
projects with $5.7 million in federal and non-federal funds,
leveraged with $9.5 million in non-federal matching funds, for
a total of $15.2 million for coral conservation in 35
countries, including 4 U.S. States and 8 U.S. territories and
freely associated States, giving the program a truly global
reach
--Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program.--In 2006, the
Foundation formed a partnership with the NOAA Marine Debris
Program to establish a competitive grants program aimed to
foster public and private relationships and support research,
prevention, and reduction activities related to the issue of
marine debris. Through this program, our goals are to build a
well informed public that acts as a steward of coastal and
marine ecosystems, thereby sustaining the health and
productivity of this ecosystem for the benefit of society as a
whole. In 2006, the Foundation awarded 18 projects with over
$782,000 in federal funds, which was leveraged with over $1
million in non-federal matching funds for projects in 9 States
and 2 U.S. territories.
With our NOAA appropriations, the Foundation also leveraged
resources to fund projects that directly benefit endangered and
threatened fish and marine species, including such species as North
Atlantic right whales, Loggerhead turtles, Hawskbill turtles, Pacific
coho salmon, and Atlantic salmon. We also measure our success in part
by preventing the listing of species under the Endangered Species Act,
as well as by stabilizing and hopefully moving others off the list. We
invested in common sense and innovative cooperative approaches to
endangered species, building bridges between the government and the
private sector.
New Strategic Plan.--During 2006, the Foundation underwent a
detailed self-evaluation, which resulted in the development of a new
strategic plan for the organization. The strategic planning process
revealed that the Foundation maximizes conservation benefits when it
targets a series of grants towards a specific geographic region,
habitat type, or conservation challenge. To ensure that future grants
achieve a sustainable and measurable conservation impact, the
Foundation is establishing targeted Keystone Initiatives around the
core conservation investment areas in which the Foundation has
historically specialized. The Keystone Initiatives represent the new
core portfolio of the Foundation's grant making with clearly defined
long-term goals, well-articulated strategies, and defined budgets to
reach desired outcomes.
The four initial Keystone Initiatives, launched by the Foundation
in 2007, include birds; wildlife and landscape scale habitats;
freshwater fish and habitats; and marine and coastal life and habitats.
Additional Keystone Initiatives being developed include wildlife and
agriculture, wildlife and energy development, invasive species, and
future conservation Leaders. Each grant approved under a Keystone
Initiative will be designed to provide a measurable outcome that brings
us one step closer to the final long-term conservation goal of the
initiative. Where appropriate, the strategies and outcomes of the
Foundation's Special Grant programs, such as the Great Lakes
Restoration Fund, Bring Back the Natives, and the Coral Reef
Conservation Fund, will be designed to directly contribute to the long-
term Keystone Initiative goal. Through our targeted grants, the
Foundation seeks to achieve measurable success in ``moving the needle''
on these critical conservation objectives over the next 5 to 10 year
period.
Accountability and Grantsmanship.--During the strategic planning
process, Foundation staff spent time listening to feedback from our
agency partners and grantees. Choke points in our grant making process
were identified, and the Foundation is in the process of revising
portions of our grant review and contracting process to ensure we
maximize efficiency while maintaining strict financial and evaluation-
based requirements. The Foundation has also launched a new website that
is more user-friendly and content rich than the previous version. This
new interactive tool will allow the Foundation to improve communication
with our stakeholders and will help streamline our grant making
process.
To ensure that only those grants with the greatest likelihood of
obtaining conservation outcomes directly related to a Keystone
Initiative are funded, the Foundation has implemented a thorough review
process. Applicants are required to submit a pre-proposal which allows
staff to proactively work with applicants to refine and improve their
application before submitting a full proposal. All full proposals are
then submitted to a peer review process which involves five external
reviews representing State agencies, federal agencies, affected
industry, environmental non-profits, and academics. Grants are also
reviewed by the Foundation's Keystone Initiative staff, as well as
evaluation staff, before being recommended to the board of directors
for approval. In addition, the Foundation provides a 30-day
notification to the members of Congress for the congressional district
and State in which a grant will be funded, prior to making a funding
decision, according to our congressional charter.
Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The Foundation is governed by a
25-member board of directors, appointed by the Secretary of Interior
and in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. At the direction of
Congress, the board operates on a nonpartisan basis. Directors do not
receive any financial compensation for service on the board; in fact,
most all of our directors make financial contributions to the
Foundation. It is a diverse board, and includes the director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as corporate and
philanthropic leaders with a tenacious commitment to fish and wildlife
conservation.
None of our federally appropriated funds are used for lobbying,
litigation, or the Foundation's administrative expenses. By
implementing strategic real-world solutions with the private sector,
while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activities, we serve as a model
for developing cooperative solutions to environmental issues. We are
confident that the money you appropriate to the Foundation is making a
positive difference.
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION'S FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006 \1\
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Funding Source Funding Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Resources Conservation Service.................. 2.970
Fish and Wildlife Service............................... 7.656
Washington Salmon................................... 1.971
Atlantic Salmon..................................... 0.985
Bureau of Land Management............................... 2.955
Forest Service.......................................... 2.637
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration......... 1.400
Pinellas County Environmental Fund.................. 0.937
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We are providing the Foundation's appropriations for the last full
fiscal year, as we are continuing to work with our agencies to
finalize our fiscal year 2007 funding allocations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to this
Subcommittee requesting a $30 million appropriation for the Commerce
Department's Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) in
fiscal year 2007. As the President and CEO of the National Federation
of Community Broadcasters, I speak on behalf of 250 community radio
stations and related organizations across the country including many of
the new Low Power FM stations. NFCB is the sole national organization
representing this group of stations, which provide independent local
service in both the smallest communities and largest metropolitan areas
of this country. Nearly half of NFCB's members are rural stations, and
half are controlled by people of color.
In summary, the points we wish to make to this Subcommittee are
that NFCB:
--Supports funding for PTFP that will cover the on-going needs of
public radio and television stations.
--Supports funding for conversion of public radio and television to
digital broadcasting.
--Supports funding to help public and community radio stations
prepare to provide emergency information during natural or
manmade disasters.
--Supports restoration of administrative funding for the program
which was cut in fiscal year 2005.
Community Radio supports $30 million in funding for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program in fiscal year 2008. Federal
support distributed through the PTFP is essential to continuing and
expanding the public broadcasting service throughout the United States.
It is particularly critical for rural stations and for those stations
serving low income communities. PTFP funds new stations, expanding the
reach of public broadcasting to rural areas and to audiences that are
not served by existing stations. In addition, it replaces obsolete and
worn out equipment so that the existing public stations can continue to
broadcast high quality programming. PTFP funding is critical to
ensuring public radios' readiness to provide life-saving information in
case of local disasters, as we have seen during the weather emergencies
the last few years. Finally, with the advent of digital broadcasting,
PTFP funding is helping with the conversion to this new technology.
We support $30 million in funding to ensure that both the on-going
program--currently funded in fiscal year 2007 at $21.8 million--will be
continued, and that the increase to $30 million will be available to
help cover the cost of improving the emergency infrastructure of public
broadcasting stations. This increase in funding is an urgent need in
order for stations to withstand and broadcast through extreme weather
or other emergency situations. In addition, increased funding is needed
to assist the conversion of public radio and television to digital.
This is particularly important because the FCC has endorsed a standard
for digital radio broadcasting, the television conversion deadline is
imminent, and commercial radio stations are converting to digital
transmission and public radio should not be left behind.
PTFP funding is unique. It is the only source of funding available
to help get new stations on the air and to ensure that public
broadcasting is available everywhere in the United States. At a time
when local service is being abandoned by commercial radio, PTFP aids
communities to develop their own local stations which provide local
information and emergency notifications.
Funding from PTFP has been essential to keep public radio stations
on the air by funding replacement of equipment, often after 20 or more
years of use. The program is administered carefully to be sure that
stations are acquiring the most appropriate type of equipment. They
also determine that equipment is being properly maintained and will not
fund the replacement of equipment before an appropriate length of time.
PTFP has also helped bring public radio service to rural areas where it
is not available. Often they fund translators to expand the coverage of
an existing station and they help with the planning and equipment needs
of a new station. Recently, many of these new projects have been for
Native American controlled stations on Indian Reservations or new local
Low Power FM installations.
Federal funding is particularly critical to stations serving rural
and underserved audiences which have limited potential for fundraising
because of sparse populations, limited number of local businesses, and
low income levels. Even so, PTFP funding is a matching program so
federal money is leveraged with a local commitment of funds. This
program is a strong motivating factor in raising the significant money
necessary to replace, upgrade and purchase expensive broadcast
equipment.
Community Radio stations need to be prepared to provide continuing
service during emergency situations. As we saw during the hurricanes
and severe weather the last couple of years, radio is the most
effective medium of communication about evacuations, weather forecasts,
traffic, services available, etc. Since everyone has radios and they
are portable and battery operated, a radio is the first source of this
critical information. But stations must have emergency power at both
the studios and the transmitter in order to provide this service.
Community Radio supports funding for conversion to digital
broadcasting for public radio and television. While public television's
digital conversion is mandated by the Federal Communications
Commission, public radio is converting to digital to provide more
public service and to keep up with the market. The digital standard for
radio has been approved and over 300 public radio transmitters have
been converted. Most exciting to public radio is that stations can
broadcast two or more high quality signals, even while they continue to
provide the analog signal. The development of additional digital audio
channels will potentially more than double the public service that
public radio can provide, particularly to unserved and underserved
communities.
Community Radio supports additional administrative funding for the
PTFP. While we thank the Senate for continuing funding of PTFP,
financial support for the skilled dedicated staff who administer these
funds was cut nearly in half in fiscal year 2005. Restoration of
administrative funds to the earlier level will assure that the program
will be carefully and thoroughly administered.
Over the last few years, the number of administrative staff for the
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program has been decreased. With
fewer Program Officers there is less support for applicants or outreach
about the program and reduced administrative funding hurts the review
process. NFCB supports the restoration of these funds.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony.
______
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 44 million
people), serving some of the nation's largest cities. However, the vast
majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000
people or less.
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) play critical roles in monitoring and
enforcing antitrust laws affecting the electric utility industry. With
the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) included
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the electric utility industry is
likely to experience an increase in mergers that could result in
increased market power in certain regions. This development coupled
with the volatility and uncertainty continuing to occur in wholesale
electricity markets makes the oversight provided by DOJ and the FTC
more critical than ever.
APPA supports adequate funding for staffing antitrust enforcement
and oversight at the FTC and DOJ. Specifically, we support the
Administration's request of $241 million for fiscal year 2008 for the
FTC. We are heartened that the downward trend in funding for the DOJ's
Antitrust Division over several years has been reversed, and are
pleased with the Administration's request of $155 million for fiscal
year 2008.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2008 funding priorities within the Commerce, Justice
and Science Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy
Madame Chairwoman and Honorable members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $1.5 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program to acquire a 42-acre property at Gaviota Cove in
California.
The Gaviota Coast Conservancy is the primary land conservation,
advocacy group for the Gaviota Coast. Since our incorporation in 1996
as a non-profit, public benefit organization, we have been working to
secure permanent protection of the Gaviota Coast's significant
resources.
Located in western Santa Barbara County between Coal Oil Point and
Point Sal, the Gaviota Coast is approximately 100 miles north of Los
Angeles and lies between the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
and the Los Padres National Forest. Offering a wide variety of natural,
recreational and agricultural resources, it is a high priority area for
conservation and is Southern California's largest remaining stretch of
pristine coastline. This remarkable 76-mile landscape includes 15
percent of the Southern California coast, representing about 50 percent
of its remaining undeveloped coastline. More than 40 sensitive species
inhabit this area, including the California red-legged frog, western
snowy plover, southern steelhead trout, southern sea otter, peregrine
falcon and tidewater goby. More than 525 plant species, representing
approximately one-half of the plant families found in California, live
in the Gaviota Coast area. This relatively undisturbed area spans more
than 30 coastal watersheds, allowing it to serve as a migration
corridor between inland, mountainous and coastal habitat areas, and
makes the Gaviota Coast the best opportunity to provide a safe-harbor
for the threatened biodiversity of Southern California's coastal
Mediterranean biome. This biome is unique in America.
The Gaviota Coast also contains some of the most significant
archaeological sites in California, preserving at least 9,000 years of
prehistory. The Chumash tribe resided in the area, and sites of several
Chumash towns, as well as numerous tribal rock art sites, are located
along the coast. Large cattle ranches and adobes still exist and are
testimony to the early settlements and agricultural history of the
region. The Gaviota Coast is a much-loved area for outdoor recreation
due to its proximity to major metropolitan areas, its scenic vistas,
rugged beaches, excellent wildlife viewing, and panoramic coastal
hillsides and mesas. It is home to several state and county parks that
are popular venues for activities such as hiking, camping, swimming,
picnicking, hang-gliding, and surfing. A study by the National Park
Service in 2004 determined that the natural and cultural resources of
the Gaviota Coast are nationally significant and encouraged efforts to
conserve them.
Situated within the Santa Barbara Coast State Seashore, and
abutting Gaviota State Park on two sides, the 42-acre Gaviota Cove
property has outstanding natural resource, recreation and scenic
values. As an in-holding within state park lands, and historically used
for coastal-dependent industry, this project is an excellent
opportunity to achieve coastal resource enhancements and public
recreational access. The property also has several known Chumash
cultural sites. Gaviota Cove is comprised of a variety of habitat
types, including grasslands, riparian habitat, willow scrub and coastal
sage scrub, freshwater aquatic, coastal strand, and marine habitats.
These habitat types are home to many plant and wildlife species,
including California thrashers, coyotes, white-crowned sparrows,
rainbow trout, western fence lizards, snowy egrets, and California
ground squirrels. Some of the sensitive species that may be found on
the project site are Gaviota tarplant, southern steelhead, globose dune
beetle, California red-legged frog, yellow-billed cuckoo, two-striped
garter snake, San Diego horned lizards, and cactus wren. The western
portion of the northern parcel and the entirety of the southern parcel
are designated as environmentally sensitive habitat (ESH) areas under
state law.
There are two creeks which run through the property: Alcatraz
Creek, and Cementerio Creek. Both creeks reach the Pacific Ocean at a
confluence on the southern part of the property. Documented occurrence
of southwestern pond turtle, a California species of special concern,
has occurred on both Alcatraz and Cementerio Creeks. Habitat sustained
by these blue-line creeks includes riparian woodlands, such as arroyo
willow and black cottonwoods, eucalyptus stands, oak woodlands,
chaparral, coastal bluff/sage scrub and native perennial and introduced
annual grassland communities. The property's southern boundary abuts
the shoreline's sandy beach. The drainages provide critical corridors
for wildlife movement and the other habitats provide living space for
both terrestrial and aquatic species.
As an addition to Gaviota State Park, this project will expand
recreational opportunities along this beautiful stretch of Southern
California coast, and protect the magnificent coastal viewshed of
Gaviota State Park for visitors on and offshore. The Gaviota Cove
property offers the unique opportunity to link isolated beach portions
of the Gaviota State Park, adding more than a quarter-mile of shoreline
to the park and creating a contiguous corridor of publicly accessible
beach for 6.5 miles. The Gaviota State Park is an extremely popular
facility, welcoming 86,000 visitors annually for hiking, soaking in hot
springs, swimming, diving, surfing, fishing and boating. It currently
has 41 developed campsites, which are popular and often full to
capacity. In expanding the state park, this project provides excellent
opportunities to enhance this public recreation resource, allowing
State Parks to increase its number of campsites and create and enhance
new trail linkages.
Increased demand for housing and other development, coupled with
the rising value of agricultural land, contribute to the rising
development pressures on the Gaviota Coast. In fact, the county is
projected to grow by 50 percent by 2025. The California Wilderness
Coalition has identified the Gaviota Coast as one of California's ten
most threatened wild places. Development would threaten the area's
biodiversity and the agricultural way of life. It would adversely
compromise the area's scenic vistas, air and water quality, and
invaluable cultural resources.
An fiscal year 2008 appropriation of $1.5 million from NOAA's
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) is needed to
acquire and protect this 42-acre property. If added to Gaviota State
Park, it will increase public beach access, expand recreational
opportunities, provide much needed visitor facilities, protect scenic
viewshed, and conserve important wildlife habitat.
In addition to specifically funding Gaviota Cove, I urge your
support for a substantial increase in overall funding for the Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation Program in fiscal year 2008 to enable
the protection of significantly more coastal resources than in previous
years. While I am pleased that the program has finally been recommended
in the President's budget for $15 million, this level--while a good
first step--is inadequate when compared to the needs from across the
country, and what Congress has historically provided for this program.
It is well established that coastal land uses can have direct and
significant adverse impacts on marine resources. In light of the fact
that most Americans live in coastal counties, resulting in ever-
increasing demands on coastal resources, it is imperative that a high
priority be placed on coastal, estuarine land conservation if we are to
properly manage our marine resources.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony in support of the Gaviota Cove acquisition and of the CELCP
program.
______
Prepared Statement of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
Ms. Chairman and Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies: Thank your for the
opportunity to submit this written testimony. My name is Mary Ann
Viverette. I've been with the Gaithersburg Police Department since 1979
and Chief since 1986. My public safety career has included service on
the Executive Committee of the Maryland Chief of Police Association,
service as a Commissioner with the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies, and I am currently the Immediate Past President
of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I am also a
member of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, an anti-crime group of more than
3,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of violence
from across the country who have come together to take a hard-nosed
look at the research about what really works to keep kids from becoming
criminals.
As a police chief, I know there is no substitute for tough law
enforcement. Dangerous criminals must be prosecuted and put behind
bars. Yet law enforcement leaders like myself know better than anyone
that we cannot arrest and imprison our way out of the crime problem.
Fortunately, research--and our experiences--show that targeted
investments that help kids get a good start in life and that intervene
effectively to redirect offending juveniles onto a different path can
prevent crime, and can make our communities safer. The federal Juvenile
Accountability Block Grant (JABG) and Title II and Title V of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) provide needed
support for these evidence-based prevention and intervention
approaches. The bipartisan Second Chance Act, once enacted, will
authorize additional support for these approaches. On behalf of my
fellow law enforcement leaders around the nation, I urge you to
increase our nation's investments in these proven crime-prevention
strategies that save lives and taxpayer dollars.
Programs that connect children to caring adults and provide
constructive activities, especially during the after-school hours of 3
p.m. to 6 p.m.--the ``prime time for juvenile crime'' on school days--
are among our most powerful tools for preventing crime. For example, a
study compared five housing projects without Boys & Girls Clubs to five
receiving new clubs. At the beginning, drug activity and vandalism were
the same. But by the time the study ended, the projects without the
programs had 50 percent more vandalism and scored 37 percent worse on
drug activity. Similarly, a study of Big Brothers Big Sisters found
that young people who were randomly assigned to a Big Brother or Big
Sister mentor were about half as likely to begin illegal drug use and
nearly one-third less likely to hit someone compared to those who were
assigned to a waiting list. Despite these proven benefits, more than 14
million children nationwide still lack adult supervision after school,
and millions lack a caring, responsible adult mentor in their lives.
One source of funding for after-school and mentoring programs is
Title V of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
(JJDPA). The Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grants program is the
only federal funding source dedicated solely to the prevention of youth
crime and violence. Almost 1,500 communities have received Title V
grants since 1994 through a competitive grant process that requires
states and localities to match at least 50 percent of the grant with
cash or in-kind contributions.
For the most dangerous young offenders, especially those who are
involved in violent gangs, a combination of intensive police
supervision, expedited sanctions for repeated violence, and expedited
access to jobs, drug treatment or other services--a carrot-and-stick
approach--has shown in a number of cities that it can cut homicides
among violent offenders in high-crime neighborhoods. In Chicago, for
example, this comprehensive, community-wide approach was tried in a
group of west side Chicago neighborhoods with a long history of high
levels of homicide, with another set of dangerous neighborhoods on the
south side of Chicago serving as the control group. In the carrot-and-
stick approach area there was a 37 percent drop in quarterly homicide
rates when the project was implemented, while the decline in homicides
in the other neighborhood during the same period was 18 percent. In a
number of locations, Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) or
JJDPA state formula grant funds have been used to support these
efforts.
Effective interventions that incorporate community sanctions have
also been shown to reliably cut crime. One such program is the
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) program. FFT works to engage and
motivate youth and their families to change behaviors that often result
in criminal activity. In one evaluation from Salt Lake City, families
with troubled youths were randomly assigned to either a group that
received FFT or one that did not. The youths who families received FFT
were half as likely to be re-arrested as the youth whose families did
not receive the family therapy. By reducing recidivism among juvenile
offenders, FFT saves the public an average of $32,000 per youth
treated.
Similarly, the Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) program targets kids
who are serious juvenile offenders by addressing the multiple factors--
in peer, school, neighborhood and family environments--known to be
related to delinquency. One MST study followed juvenile offenders until
they were, on average, 29-years-old. Individuals who had not received
MST were 62 percent more likely to have been arrested for an offense,
and more than twice as likely to be arrested for a violent offense. It
is also less expensive than other mental health and juvenile justice
services like residential treatment and incarceration, saving the
public $4.27 for every dollar invested.
The transition of juvenile offenders from confinement to ``life on
the outside'' presents great risks and opportunities for young people
and society. Juveniles released from confinement still have their
likely ``prime crime years'' ahead of them. Perpetrators over age 17
commit 85 percent of all violent crimes and young adults aged 18 to 21
account for a greater percentage of crime than any other four-year age
group. Unsuccessful transitions into the community result in an
alarmingly high recidivism rate for juvenile offenders of 55-75
percent. Fortunately, the likelihood that young people will
successfully transition back into society after confinement improves
markedly with comprehensive, research-based reentry efforts.
Comprehensive reentry programs are especially effective among young
people. With their brain development still in progress, young ex-
offenders are more amenable to effective behavior modification
interventions, thus saving lives, anguish, and public tax dollars.
Effective offender reentry efforts include programs like
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). Foster care may sound
like a pass for juveniles who should be paying a more severe price for
the crime they committed. But for teens who are often used to running
the streets, and who see a month in custody as just another chance to
socialize with delinquent friends or learn new criminal behaviors, this
is a more controlled experience and a tough intervention. MTFC provides
specially trained foster parents and ongoing supervision by a program
case manager, as well as frequent contact and coordination of services
with a youth's parole or probation officer, teachers, work supervisors
and other involved adults during and after a youth's out of home
placement. Compared to similar juveniles placed in non-secure group
facilities, the MTFC approach cuts the average number of repeat arrests
for seriously delinquent juveniles in half, and six times as many of
the boys in MTFC as boys in a group home were not arrested again. MTFC
is also cost-effective: it saves the public an average of over $77,000
for every juvenile treated.
The bi-partisan Second Chance Act of 2007 (H.R. 1593/S. 1060) is a
step toward reducing the high recidivism rate among juvenile and adult
offenders. The legislation authorizes assistance to states and
localities to develop and implement strategic plans for comprehensive
efforts to enable ex-offenders to successfully reenter their
communities such as: family reunification, job training, education,
housing, substance abuse and mental health services. The bill would
also provide for research on reentry, as well as create a national
resource center to collect and disseminate information on best
practices in offender reentry. This legislation is moving towards
enactment in 2007, with funding first authorized for fiscal year 2008.
JABG and JJDPA Title II state formula grants already support
research-proven programs like FFT, MST and MTFC. But funding falls far
short of meeting the need. In 2002, approximately 150,000 juvenile
offenders were placed out-of-home, and nearly 400,000 others were
placed on probation. Some juvenile offenders must be placed in secure
custody to protect public safety, and many others are first-time
offenders who will not become repeat offenders and therefore are not
high-risk enough to justify the expense and intrusion of the
aforementioned programs. But even if only half of those on probation
and half of those placed out of home are eligible for these effective
intervention programs, the number of young offenders who could benefit
from evidenced-based approaches would still amount to 7 times the
35,000 total currently being served by MST, FFT, and MTFC. In other
words, these programs will have to expand 7 times their current
capacity nationwide before they start running out of youth who could
and should be receiving their services.
Unfortunately, the Administration's fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes to eliminate all of the JJDPA funding sources and create a
single, new ``Child Safety and Juvenile Justice'' block grant. This
block grant would be funded at a level that is 25 percent lower than
the total fiscal year 2007 funding for the programs eliminated. We
encourage Congress to demonstrate its commitment to crime prevention by
rejecting proposed cuts and block-granting, and by increasing funding
for federal juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs. We
urge you to restore funding for Title II State Formula Grants to $89
million, Title V funding to $95 million, and JABG funding to $250
million--levels appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2002--and
ensure that the new Second Chance Act of 2007 is fully funded.
If we do not invest in research-proven crime-prevention programs
for America's most vulnerable kids, many of them will grow up to become
America's most wanted adults. By failing to adequately invest in proven
crime-prevention strategies, Congress is not only failing to facilitate
a better future for millions of kids but is also permitting the
cultivation of criminals--jeopardizing the safety of all Americans for
years to come.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on how your
Subcommittee can help to reduce crime and make us all safer.
______
Prepared Statement of the West Creek Preservation Committee
Madam Chairwoman and Honorable members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate and am honored by the opportunity to provide this testimony
in support of an appropriation of $1,100,000 from NOAA's Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program to protect the 10-acre West Creek
Confluence property in the city of Independence, Ohio.
In addition, I would like to urge your support for a substantial
increase in overall funding for the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program in fiscal year 2008. The coastal resources of this
nation, including Ohio's, are under intense and increasing development
pressure. It is of the utmost importance that we balance future
development with greater protection of our coastal resources and
natural heritage. For instance, in Ohio alone approximately $10 billion
is generated annually from Lake Erie tourism and recreation-related
activities, which are dependent upon a healthy and aesthetically
pleasing coastal area.
Ohio is not alone in regard to its need for greater coastal
resource protection. Across this great nation coastal areas are among
the most densely populated and heavily utilized. We are pleased that
the program has been recommended in the President's budget for $15
million. However, when compared to the needs from across the country
and to what Congress has historically provided for this program, we
believe that the protection and future wellbeing of our coastlines and
coastal watersheds requires a substantially greater investment.
To be specific, the protection and future wellbeing of Ohio's
coastal resources and coastal watersheds are why I have traveled to be
before you today. I am the Watershed Coordinator for the West Creek
Preservation Committee, a citizen-led nonprofit organization that works
within the Greater Cleveland area of the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie
watersheds. Our mission is to conserve, protect and restore the
environmental, recreational and cultural resources of this area. Our
thousands of supporters and members are comprised of a diverse mixture
ranging from your average citizens, to business leaders, to elected
officials, all with the common goal of protecting environmental
quality, furthering outdoor urban recreational opportunities and
quality of life, and increasing economic prosperity.
In the ten years that the West Creek Preservation Committee has
been in existence we have protected approximately 500 acres of urban
and suburban greenspace including the creation of Cleveland's newest
Metropark, we have created and restored acres of urban wetlands, we are
developing a recreational trail system and greenway that will span
multiple communities and be a part of and connect with the Ohio & Erie
Canalway National Scenic Byway, and we are undertaking one of the most
ambitious and important stream restoration projects in the Greater
Cleveland area.
We are proud to be working with the City of Independence, Ohio, and
numerous other project partners, including The Trust for Public Land,
the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District and Cleveland Metroparks, on
what we consider to be one of our most critical projects to date, the
West Creek Confluence Project. Located within Cuyahoga County in the
City of Independence, and within the Cuyahoga River Area of Concern,
the West Creek Confluence Project involves the acquisition, and future
complete restoration, of ten acres of land at the confluence of two
extremely important waterbodies, West Creek and the Cuyahoga River.
The property contains approximately 850 feet of West Creek main
stem and includes its confluence with the Cuyahoga River. The property
is positioned at the northern end of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park,
is adjacent to the Ohio & Erie Canalway National Scenic Byway, and will
provide an access point to the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad and to
the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail.
Several decades ago the property was developed with what is now an
empty warehouse, which severely impacted West Creek and has contributed
to extensive flooding, degraded aquatic and riparian habitat, and
enormous influxes of nonpoint source pollution to the Cuyahoga River
and Lake Erie Basin.
Once permanently protected the Confluence Property will be fully
restored and the empty warehouse and parking lot removed. Proper
hydrology will be restored to the waterway by re-meandering it through
the property and re-connecting it with its floodplain. Aquatic and
riparian habitat will be restored to the stream and an expansive array
of floodplain wetlands and vernal pools will be created to increase
ecological habitat and diversity for everything from waterfowl to
amphibians, to store and retain stormwater during flooding events, and
to filter and reduce sediment influxes and other nonpoint source
pollution, one of the greatest contributors to water quality problems
within Lake Erie.
Perhaps most importantly, the West Creek Confluence Project will
herald in a new era of sustainable land use for the Cuyahoga River
floodplain and its development away from previously poor and
incompatible land uses. This project will not only improve the
environment and Lake Erie Basin water quality, it will also create a
dynamic recreational and educational focal point along the Ohio & Erie
Canalway Scenic Byway that will attract large numbers of citizens,
tourists and new business opportunities.
When completed, as visitors veer west from the Ohio & Erie Canal
Towpath Trail onto the West Creek Greenway Trail System, they will see
a meandering, willow-lined West Creek, they will see a broad and
vibrant floodplain, and they will see numerous floodplain wetlands and
vernal pools and the animals that inhabit them. The West Creek
Confluence Project will become a gateway to the endless possibilities
that exist within the realm of urban coastal conservation and
stewardship.
Realizing the importance and value of this project, the State of
Ohio (through the Clean Ohio Conservation Fund), the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District (through the Water Resources Restoration
Sponsorship Program) and the City of Independence are all making
substantial monetary investments in the West Creek Confluence Project.
The appropriation of $1,100,000 from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program will leverage and be matched with the committed
funding from the State of Ohio, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
and City of Independence to bring the protection of this important
property through to fruition.
Millions of Ohioans depend upon Lake Erie for clean drinking water,
recreational enjoyment and economic prosperity. It is the eleventh
largest freshwater lake in the world and, of the five Great Lakes
basins, it is the most densely populated and most affected by both
urbanization and agriculture. Lake Erie supports one of the world's
most significant commercial freshwater fisheries and the largest sport
fishery among the five Great Lakes. Lake Erie alone produces more fish
for human consumption than the other four Great Lakes combined!
Ohio's North Coast has seen a significant increase in recreation
and tourism related revenue over the past decade, which is directly
attributable to the environmental and aesthetic health and wellbeing of
Lake Erie. Over 7 million people recreate at Ohio's portion of the Lake
Erie Basin annually resulting in the sustenance of a quarter of a
million jobs and netting $5.8 billion in yearly wages. An additional
approximately $10 billion per year is generated from Lake Erie tourism
and recreation-related activities.
Lake Erie is key to Northern Ohio's future economic prosperity! The
West Creek Confluence Project represents a key step in sustaining and
improving Lake Erie watershed water quality and environmental health!
In fiscal year 2008, $1.1 million is needed from NOAA's Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program to complete the protection of the
West Creek Confluence Property. Substantial State of Ohio and local
investment has been secured to match this Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program funding request. However, due to time limitations
associated with some of the State and local matching funds it is
critical that this Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Project be
funded in fiscal year 2008.
On behalf of the West Creek Preservation Committee, our members,
supporters and citizens of Greater Cleveland and Northeast Ohio, I
thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Honorable members of the Subcommittee,
for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) encourages
Congress to appropriate at least the President's fiscal year 2008
request of $6.43 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Providing at least $20 million more than the request would enable NSF
to increase funding for the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) by
roughly 7 percent, an increase over the requested 4.1 percent and just
below the agency-wide average increase for the various research
directorates.
AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing
biological research and education for the welfare of society. Founded
in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences, AIBS became an
independent, member-governed organization in the 1950s. AIBS is
sustained by a robust membership of some 5,000 biologists and nearly
200 professional societies and scientific organizations; the combined
individual membership of the latter exceeds 250,000. AIBS advances its
mission through coalition activities in research, education, and public
policy; publishing the peer-reviewed journal BioScience and the
education website ActionBioscience.org; providing scientific peer
review and advisory services to government agencies and other clients;
convening meetings; and managing scientific programs.
Invigorating our nation's innovation enterprise, improving science
education, and addressing energy, security, and environmental problems
are bipartisan national priorities. NSF is the primary federal research
agency with the capacity to support the breadth of scientific research
programs that have the potential to drive discovery to meet these
priorities. Moreover, NSF-sponsored biological and environmental
sciences research will contribute to the development of sustainable and
cost-effective solutions for these challenges.
NSF's BIO is vital to our nation's continued leadership in the
biological sciences, the fields of science dedicated to understanding
how organisms and ecological systems function. Research disciplines
heavily dependent upon the directorate include botany, ecology,
microbiology, zoology, basic molecular and cellular biology,
systematics and taxonomy. Equally important, NSF provides essential
support for our nation's biological research infrastructure, such as
field stations and natural science collections (e.g. university-based
natural history museums), and education and training programs for
undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral students.
According to NSF data, BIO provides 68 percent of federal grant
support for fundamental biological research conducted at our nation's
universities and other nonprofit research centers.
The Administration's fiscal year 2008 budget request would provide
$5.131 billion to support disciplinary research programs within the
Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account. This funding level
would provide an average 7.7 percent increase for the various programs
within the R&RA account, and a 4.1 percent increase for the biological
sciences.
Members of the biological sciences community appreciate the
proposed increase. However, there is growing concern that BIO funding
is not keeping pace with the need and demand for biological sciences
research. When adjusted for inflation, the requested fiscal year 2008
budget for BIO places the program only slightly above the 2001 funding
level and near the 2003 funding level. Scientists dependent upon BIO
grants for research support are feeling the pressure. Over the past
four years, the research grant funding rate for BIO has been lower than
the NSF-wide funding rate. Yet the number and scope of problems
requiring biological information continues to increase. In 2006, the
research grant funding rate was only 14 percent compared with an
agency-wide rate of 21 percent.
Under the requested budget, BIO would receive $633 million in
fiscal year 2008 to support its six core programs. These programs and
their proposed funding levels are: Molecular and Cellular Biosciences
$116.37 million; Integrative Organismal Systems $105.49 million;
Environmental Biology $114.66 million; Biological Infrastructure $96.1
million; Emerging Frontiers (a cross-discipline, ``virtual''
directorate) $99.16 million; and Plant Genome Research $101.2 million.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes important funding for
the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), the first national
ecological measurement and observation system designed to answer
regional- to continental-scale scientific questions. NEON is an
innovative facility that is designed to transform the way science and
education are conducted by enabling integration of data from natural-
to human-dominated systems and from genomes to the biosphere. A total
of $24 million has been requested for NEON in fiscal year 2008. Roughly
$16 million would be funded from BIO and $8 million would be funded
from the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
account.
Research support is only one of NSF's important missions. NSF is a
vital component of our nation's formal and informal science education
system. Whether through programs such as Research Experiences for
Undergraduates, Integrated Graduate Education and Research
Traineeships, or other fellowships for graduate and post-doctoral
researchers, NSF provides the resources required to recruit, educate
and train our next generation of scientists.
The informal science education programs supported by the Education
and Human Resources Directorate could benefit from increased funding.
Economic growth demands a scientifically aware and technically skilled
workforce--one in which employees have the scientific awareness
adequate to generate the next great idea. Moreover, we live at a time
when the citizenry is increasingly called upon to make informed
decisions. Informal science education programs, whether through a
natural history museum, science center or other venue, reach large
audiences and provide a valuable mechanism for reaching the general
public.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
your prior support of the National Science Foundation. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact me at 202-
628-1500.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
about the american museum of natural history
The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is one of the
nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its joint
mission of science and public education. It is renowned for its
exhibitions and collections of more than 32 million natural specimens
and cultural artifacts. With approximately 4 million annual on-site
visitors--approximately half of them children--it is one of the
largest, fastest growing, and most diverse museums in the country.
Museum scientists conduct groundbreaking research in fields ranging
from all branches of zoology, comparative genomics, and informatics to
Earth science, biodiversity conservation, and astrophysics. Their work
forms the basis for all the Museum's activities that seek to explain
complex issues and help people to understand the events and processes
that created and continue to shape the Earth, life and civilization on
this planet, and the universe beyond.
the american museum--nasa partnership
NASA and the AMNH have been engaged in a multi-year partnership
founded on a joint commitment to cutting-edge research and the
integration of that research into unique educational tools and
resources. The AMNH has worked with the Agency to develop innovative
technologies and resources that provide an unparalleled platform for
interpreting, displaying, and distributing NASA content to audiences
nationwide.
--The Museum has built a set of singular national resources that
bring cutting-edge science and integrated NASA content to total
audiences of more than 15 million in New York City, across the
country, and around the world. In the New York area alone, the
Museum reaches nearly four million annual visitors, including
more than 450,000 children in school groups and more than 5,000
teachers, with millions visiting online.
--We have launched a successful program to disseminate project
resources to informal learning venues nationally and
internationally, with Science Bulletins already on view in 39
locations and Space Shows at 32, with more being added.
--We have created Science Bulletins--technologically innovative,
immersive multimedia science encounters, presenting space,
Earth, and life science news and discoveries in visually
stunning feature documentaries, data visualizations, and weekly
updates.
--The Museum has made numerous technological breakthroughs--it has
established leadership in science visualization and high
resolution renderings of massive data sets; it has converted
its Space Shows to digital format, making the AMNH the only
full planetarium dome content provider that crosses all major
platforms; it has pioneered a unique online distribution
network that each week streams new science content in HD MPEG2
encodes to partners across North America and most recently, has
simplified the technical requirements of the network, including
new server and/or lower bandwidth for downloading, so that
content is more accessible to more venues.
--AMNH routinely hosts major events celebrating NASA's mission
highlights and milestones. Recent events have included live,
large-scale events of broadcasts of the New Horizons launch,
Stardust sample return, and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter arrival
at Mars.
--The Museum's educational mission is fueled by and reflects cutting-
edge science, including the work of our scientists in
collaboration with NASA centers and researchers.
Building on this foundation, the Museum seeks in fiscal year 2008
to advance the AMNH-NASA collaboration--with a particular focus on
scaling up to reach even larger audiences--with a program for
communicating current science content, and content about NASA science
and missions in particular, to diverse national audiences. The Museum's
activities will include the development of current NASA science
education resources, such as Science Bulletins, and continuing to scale
up their national distribution for presentation in public spaces and
for classroom use.
Science Bulletins (SB) is a nationally distributed, multimedia
science exhibition program targeted to informal learning settings. It
presents cutting-edge research and discoveries in visually compelling
feature documentaries and updates in flexible, large-screen, high-
definition video and interactive kiosk versions, as well as in a free
online version adapted for classroom use. Our SB program for the
following year includes expanding dissemination significantly,
developing new visualization methods for use in the development and
distribution of SB, and reaching out in diverse ways to the formal
education sector to maximize access to the Science Bulletins at the K-
12 level.
Museum activities for the next year also include R&D on new
techniques for visualizing massive space and Earth science data sets,
creating visualization tools for presenting NASA missions and other
dynamic science stories, and for advancing innovative solutions to
technical challenges in presenting digital planetarium shows. AMNH will
conduct extensive internal and external evaluation of this program's
activities.
Recognizing its potential to support NASA in its goals to pioneer
the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
research; to develop a balanced overall program of science,
exploration, and aeronautics; and to establish new and innovative
programs to enhance understanding of our Earth, other planets,
asteroids, and comets in our solar system, as well as the search for
life around other stars, the Museum looks forward to advancing its
successful multi-year collaboration with NASA and to contributing its
unique science, education, and technological capacity to helping the
Agency to meet these goals.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
about the american museum of natural history
The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is one of the
nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
collections of more than 32 million natural specimens and cultural
artifacts. With nearly four million annual visitors, its audience is
one of the largest, fastest growing, and most diverse of any museum in
the country. Museum scientists conduct groundbreaking research in
fields ranging from zoology, comparative genomics, and informatics to
Earth, space, and environmental sciences and biodiversity conservation.
Their work forms the basis for all the Museum's activities that seek to
explain complex issues and help people to understand the events and
processes that created and continue to shape the Earth, life and
civilization on this planet, and the universe beyond.
The Museum's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, founded in
1993, is dedicated to enhancing the use of scientific data to mitigate
threats to global biodiversity, and to integrating this information
into the conservation process and disseminating it widely. It conducts
conservation-related field projects around the world, trains
scientists, organizes scientific symposia, presents public programs,
and produces publications geared toward scientists, policy makers, and
the lay public. Each spring, the CBC hosts symposia that focus on
conservation issues. The 2006 symposium, Conserving Birds in Human-
Dominated Landscapes, focused on unique challenges to and key
opportunities for invigorating bird diversity in the areas most heavily
impacted by human activities, and the 2007 symposium, Small Matters:
Microbes and Their Role in Conservation, will bring together a diverse
group of microbiologists and conservation biologists to explore broad
questions of the planet's microbial diversity and how conservation
practices take microbial life into account.
The Museum's renovated Hall of Ocean Life, reopened in spring 2003,
is a major focal point for public education on marine science issues.
Drawing on the Museum's world-renowned expertise in Ichthyology as well
as other areas of Vertebrate as well as Invertebrate Zoology, the Hall
is pivotal in educating visitors about the oceans' key role in
sustaining life on our planet. The renovated Hall of Ocean Life,
together with the new Halls of Biodiversity, Planet Earth, and the
Universe and the rebuilt Hayden Planetarium (part of the new Rose
Center for Earth and Space) provide visitors with a seamless
educational journey from the universe's beginnings to the formation and
processes of Earth to the extraordinary diversity of life on our
planet.
common goals of noaa and amnh
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
committed to understanding and predicting changes in the Earth's
environment and to conserving and managing coastal and marine resources
to meet the nation's needs. NOAA's Education Plan outlines a broad
vision for reaching various audiences to build awareness and knowledge
of issues related to the world's atmosphere, climate, oceans, and
coastal ecosystems. Addressing the needs of teachers, students, and
policy makers as well as the general public, the agency's goals include
enhancing environmental literacy and knowledge, application of NOAA
science, and development of a capable and diverse workforce for
environmental science.
The American Museum of Natural History shares NOAA's commitment to
these environmental goals and to the scientific research and public
education that support them. Since its founding in 1869, the American
Museum has pursued its mission of scientific investigation and public
education. Its exhibitions and collections serve as a field guide to
the entire planet and present a panorama of the world's cultures.
Museum collections of some 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts
provide an irreplaceable record of life. More than 200 Museum
scientists conduct groundbreaking research in fields as diverse as
systematic and conservation biology, astrophysics, and Earth and
biodiversity sciences. The work of scientific staff fuels exhibitions
and educational programming that reach annually an on-site audience of
nearly four million visitors--nearly half of them children.
marine sciences initiative
In fiscal year 2004, as a result of Congressional leadership, the
Museum entered into a partnership with NOAA that launched a multi-year
marine science and education initiative. Support for this initiative,
which encompasses a broad range of education and research activities
closely aligned with NOAA goals and purposes, was continued in fiscal
year 2005 (and recommended in the fiscal year 2007 report), and further
leveraged by Museum scientists who successfully secured competitive
NOAA funding. Building upon this strong foundation, and in concert with
the strategic priorities of NOAA and the Museum, we seek $1 million in
fiscal year 2008 to join with NOAA in aquatic research and education
activities that promote environmental literacy. Over a one year period,
activities will include: ecosystem-based research, training, and
research tool development concerning oceans and aquatic environments;
professional development for teachers; special programs on New York
waterways for New York City schoolchildren; and public education
programs--including some built around a special water exhibition--that
will increase understanding of the importance of healthy oceans and
atmosphere.
Recognizing its potential to support NOAA in its goals to
understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment; to conserve
and manage coastal and marine resources; and to protect, restore, and
manage the use of coastal and ocean resources to meet our Nation's
economic, social, and environmental needs, the Museum looks forward to
advancing a partnership with the agency in an education, outreach, and
research initiative to promote public understanding and stewardship of
marine environments.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science. UCAR is
a 70-university member consortium that manages and operates the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional programs
that support and extend the country's scientific research and education
capabilities. UCAR is supported by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and other federal agencies including the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Innovation research is about chemistry and physics, but it's also
about earth science. Understanding the earth is a basic necessity,
because we need to understand our planet and its environments in order
to make sound policy decisions. And if we don't understand the earth,
we can't save it.----Barbara Mikulski, Chair, Appropriations Commerce,
Justice, Science Subcommittee
The American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is proposed to double
the physical sciences research budget by 2016, thereby strengthening
this nation's economic competitiveness. In this most critical moment
for the health of our planet and therefore the future of life as we
know it, the geosciences contribute knowledge that is absolutely
necessary to understanding climate, weather, the dynamics of water
resources, solar effects on Earth, space weather, the interactions of
Earth's systems, energy resources, geologic hazards, and all aspects of
the global oceans. The economic effects are very substantial, with
estimates of the component of the U.S. economy exposed to risks
associated with weather and climate variability reaching $3 trillion
annually.
The strength of the country's R&D investment is a result of
multiple agencies playing numerous, complementary and interlocking
roles. Through NSF, NASA and NOAA funding of the geosciences, critical
information is provided for economic planning and to produce a better
equipped work force to deal with environmental challenges. The
atmospheric sciences community strongly supports the nation's
innovation agenda--an investment that will pay great dividends for this
country if it is funded over the next ten years. We urge the Committee
to do everything possible to include the geosciences within NSF, as
well as NASA and NOAA science programs, in this initiative.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
NSF plays a unique role among all federal agencies in strengthening
the ability of the country to: create new ideas; develop new
technologies; create a diverse, knowledgeable workforce; and set new
standards that challenge any boundaries of invention and intellect.
These are all key components of our capacity to compete globally in the
21st Century and are fundamental drivers of wealth producing growth and
job creation. I urge the Committee to support the President's overall
fiscal year 2008 request of $6.4 billion for the National Science
Foundation and, within NSF, the request of $5.1 billion for Research
and Related Activities (R&RA), the heart of NSF's scientific
enterprise. In addition, I urge the Committee to support the
Administration's goal of doubling the research budget of NSF over the
course of a decade, realizing the promise of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002.
Geosciences Directorate (GEO).--GEO is the principal source of
federal funding for university based, basic research in the
geosciences, providing 61 percent of the total federal support in these
areas. As stated directly in the fiscal year 2008 budget request, ``GEO
directly contributes to innovation and competitiveness through its
broad portfolio of investments in fundamental research, facilities, and
instrumentation that enable discovery, innovation, and integrated
education and research activities that increase the effectiveness of
the science and engineering workforce.'' I urge the Committee to
support the President's fiscal year 2008 request of $792.0 million for
the Geosciences Directorate and, within GEO, to provide the President's
request of $240.8 million for the Atmospheric Sciences Division which
provides resources for the atmospheric sciences community that are
critical to the physical safety of our citizens, our economic health,
and global issues of national security such as severe weather hazards,
climate change, the security of our communications infrastructure, and
the environmental health of the planet.
Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate.--Key to the
success of the innovation agenda and to the future of this country, is
the improvement of math and science education. However, EHR funding has
declined steadily for the last several years, particularly in the K-12
and undergraduate areas. We believe those reductions should be reversed
so that a strong NSF presence in the K-12 and undergraduate areas can
be maintained. The strengthening of science education, so critical to
the nation's future, must be intimately connected with the best
scientific practices and results being produced via the NSF scientific
directorates. We appreciate the recognition in the request of the value
of digital libraries to major communities of learners. Within the
Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE), the National STEM Education
Digital Library (NSDL) receives a modest increase of $500,000. The
value of this program continues to rise as its capacity to bring first-
rate education tools into the classroom is broadened and enhanced. I
urge the Committee to provide as healthy an increase as possible, above
the request of $750.6 million, for the Education and Human Resources
Directorate so that it may play its rightful, critical role in
achieving the country's ACI goals.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plays a unique and central
role in our nation's ability to attract students into science and
engineering fields, and to understand the universe, our own planet's
environmental complexities and its relationship to the Sun, and major
factors contributing to climate change. Despite this essential role,
NASA's fiscal year 2008 federal budget request would significantly
decrease the science portfolio, defer or eliminate many of the nation's
most successful and promising missions, and fund only a relatively
small number of scientific missions (albeit promising ones) in the next
five to ten years. While the manned program is important, it cannot
come at the expense of this critical investment. Within SMD, NASA also
plays a unique and central role in the study of the complexities of the
Earth system and the equally complex relationship of the Sun to Earth.
NASA's continued funding for Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM),
Glory, NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), and the Global Precipitation
Measurement (GPM) mission to maintain current schedules is strongly
endorsed. However, given the recent release of the National Research
Council's Decadal Survey on Earth Science, NASA should increase its
funding levels for earth sciences consistent with the report's
recommendations to ensure that future critical missions are supported.
Moreover, NASA's investment in Earth Science Research and Analysis
(R&A) and the missions and tools associated with this research makes
possible the study of Earth from space providing data that simply are
not available from any other sources. These observations, used in
research and in the construction of computer models to predict weather,
climate, and natural hazards, provide a critical basis from which our
understanding of our planet evolves and on which informed policy
decisions, both long term and emergency response, can be made. Given
the tremendous importance of this underlying activity, I urge the
Committee to restore Research and Analysis (R&A) programs to funding
levels at least commensurate with fiscal year 2006 levels.
In addition to investments in Earth-Sun System, NASA must preserve
the essential PI-led programs that serve as a primary conduit through
which the nation's best scientists can engage NASA in cutting-edge
problems. NASA should support the Explorer, Discovery, and New Frontier
programs and fully commit to missions unless there are technical or
cost related issues. When NASA promotes premature termination of those
missions for non-technical or cost reasons, it is in danger of sending
the message to the community that it is an unreliable partner and that
this is not a field that future scientists and engineers should pursue.
Moreover, balanced, highly skilled teams of talent are lost, as are
discoveries on the immediate horizon. NASA also sends a troubling
message to graduate students and young investigators by delaying new
opportunities in these programs. The long delay in Explorer
opportunities from a once annual opportunity runs the risk of depleting
the nation's pipeline of scientists and program managers capable of
leading the next generation of earth and space missions.
While the exploration initiative and International Space Station
are of great human interest and of scientific value, we are far from
unlocking all the mysteries of our own planet. NASA programs that are
in progress and others that are yet to be implemented will enable us to
protect space vehicles, astronauts, and satellites from the devastating
radiation of solar storms; mitigate some of the property damage and
prevent some of the deaths caused by severe weather; and help us to
mitigate, understand, and cope with the inevitable effects of natural
and human-induced climate change. These programs are critical to the
health of our economy, to the health of the Earth, and to our national
security. As the Administration's new vision for U.S. space exploration
unfolds, I urge the Committee to protect the vibrant NASA science
accounts and missions, current and planned, that make possible the
study of our own planet and the environment that sustains life on
Earth.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA's contributions to the nation's safety, economy and
environment more than justify increased investment in its research and
education programs, its personnel and related scientific support
facilities. One of NOAA's most important contributions is its support
for the weather enterprise--a partnership between government, academic
and private sector organizations. For example, NOAA maintains a world-
class satellite and surface-based observational system without which
weather research and operational forecasts simply could not function.
NOAA also makes its own key contributions to both research and to
developing and maintaining operational systems. Without the R&D and
operations behind the accurate forecasts and warnings that moved tens
of thousands of people out of the path of Hurricane Katrina, the number
of deaths caused directly by the storm would have been catastrophic.
This is just one example of the manner in which NOAA provides a
critical link that often means the difference between life and death,
between research results, research applications, technology
development, and operations.
We strongly support an appropriation of $4.5 billion for NOAA in
fiscal year 2008--a level recommended by the Senate for the past two
fiscal years and endorsed by the House Oceans Caucus and the Friends of
NOAA Coalition. The fiscal year 2008 request is $3.8 billion, a
decrease of more than $96.0 million from the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level. We believe that under-funding NOAA is a false economy that will
degrade critical weather and climate services all too often taken for
granted. For NOAA to address all areas of concern and priority that
have been identified by Congress and that are listed below, and to
restore core funding that has decreased in recent years, I urge the
Committee to fund NOAA at $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2008 and to do
so while maintaining vital support for other portion's of the
Subcommittee's research and development portfolio.
National Weather Service (NWS).--The fiscal year 2008 President's
request for NWS contains modest growth above the fiscal year 2007
request and joint resolution. This amount will modestly help to ease
demoralizing pressures put on NWS operations staff in recent years.
Unfortunately, several important programs continue to fare poorly. The
Space Environment Center (SEC) provides space weather and solar
radiation warnings for, among other things, modern telecommunications
and electricity grid operations. Yet the fiscal year 2008 request is
only $6.2 million, down from $7.3 million in fiscal year 2007. The NOAA
Profiler Network (NPN) gathers vertical wind data of proven value for
weather prediction and severe storm warnings. We appreciate the stated
commitment to beginning the NPN conversions needed to avoid a near
complete shutdown by 2010, but note that the fiscal year 2008 request
would leave 90 percent of the conversions to be completed in only two
years. Additional funds in the PAC account for NPN may provide a more
realistic completion schedule. The U.S. Weather Research Program
(USWRP) request reduces funding to multi-national cooperative research
efforts by $1.5 million, in particular pulling out of the THORPEX
Pacific-Asia Regional Campaign (T-PARC) designed to improve pacific
coast winter storm forecasts. This would renege on U.S. commitments and
slow forecast improvements. I urge the Committee to increase the
President's fiscal year 2008 request of $903.5 million for the NWS by
the amount necessary, approximately $3.5 million to fund SEC, NPN, and
THORPEX at reasonable levels.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).--The OAR fiscal
year 2008 budget request is $368.8 million, a decrease of over $10.0
million from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The fiscal year 2008
request will allow modest increases for implementation of the National
Integrated Drought Information System (NDIS) and improving hurricane
intensity research, extremely important and timely progress that we
welcome. The climate research programs of OAR, including the
competitive grants program within Climate and Global Change, have been
combined into a new account titled, Competitive Research Program. Since
the overwhelming percentage of the programs funded within this account
are operated by NOAA and not open to competition, this new title is
misleading. However, many of the programs within this account are
certainly of importance to the atmospheric sciences community, in
particular the extramural, merit-based grants program which could
address shortfalls in critical areas such as badly needed improved
observations provided through programs such as ARGO, if it were fully
funded. I urge the Committee to provide at least the President's fiscal
year 2006 enacted level of $379.6 million for OAR in fiscal year 2008
in order to allow for a robust and truly competitive extramural climate
research program.
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
(NESDIS).--NESDIS is responsible for managing all aspects of NOAA's
remotely gathered environmental data that form the basis for
environmental research meeting the needs of policy makers and users.
Continued support for the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
(GEOSS) is appreciated, but the overall NESDIS request is down as is
the request for the National Data Centers which are of critical
importance in making data available to researchers and policy makers.
Our community is well aware of the significant budget problems that the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (NPOESS)
will surely cause as it becomes operational. The NPOESS program is
essential to maintaining and upgrading a comprehensive satellite and
surface observational system, 40 percent of which, according to a
recent NRC report, is quickly coming to the end of its functional life.
At a time when the nation should be fixing the NPOESS problem, we do
not understand how NESDIS could be slated for a budget cut. I urge the
Committee to protect other NOAA research and operational programs that
serve this nation well, while addressing the NPOESS issue and giving
NESDIS the resources it needs in fiscal year 2008 to keep this country
ahead of all others in our ability to gather environmental data that
are essential for policy decisions, the management of resources, and
the health of our economy.
National Ocean Service (NOS) and Ocean Research Priorities Plan.--
NOAA is the nation's preeminent agency for ocean research and for the
transfer of research results into products and services that affect the
health of the oceans, coastlines, and coastal water sheds; the nation's
economy; and the well being of many U.S. citizens. In 2004, the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy recommended approximately $3 billion in
projects to improve the state of our oceans, yet NOAA's budget has
fared poorly since then and many ocean programs of NOAA have been cut.
There is an urgent need to implement programs such as the Integrated
Ocean Observing System at this particular time when our environment is
changing rapidly and we need to monitor changes in the oceans as well
as interactions between the atmosphere and oceans. I urge the Committee
to fund NOS at the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $590.4 million in
fiscal year 2008.
The Administration has recently completed and released an
interagency Ocean Research Priorities Plan and implementation strategy
in a report entitled Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the
United States for the Next Decade. This plan is an important first step
toward building the scientific foundation to improve society's
stewardship and use of, and interaction with, the ocean and
understanding its impact on our weather and climate systems. I urge the
Congress to examine this interagency plan closely--particularly as it
relates to NSF and NOAA--and provide as much support as possible for
its implementation.
On behalf of the UCAR community, I want to thank the Committee for
your stewardship of the nation's scientific enterprise and your
understanding that the future strength of the nation depends on the
investments we make in science and technology today.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby: We, the Board
of Directors of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, are writing
as supporters of the oceans programs of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We strongly encourage you to
consider appropriations for NOAA at the $4.5 billion level for fiscal
year 2008.
This investment in NOAA yields great returns for the nation,
especially when you consider that over half of the nation's gross
domestic product is generated in coastal counties and adjacent waters,
yielding $2.5 trillion. Through its weather forecasting, nautical
charting, fisheries management, hazard mitigation, and ocean protection
and management responsibilities, no other federal agency affects this
country's 300 million Americans every day the way NOAA does. An
investment of $4.5 billion averages out to just $15 per person
annually.
Despite the many benefits NOAA provides, shifts in funding
priorities in recent years have led to substantial cuts in key NOAA
programs with long-standing reputations for excellence. The National
Marine Sanctuary System (NMSS), for example, is a crucial thread in the
larger fabric of ocean science, conservation and education. To enhance
and sustain the effectiveness of the system, we strongly urge you to
fund NMSS at no less than $78 million for fiscal year 2008, which would
restore the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and provide a $10 million
increase to support the system's growth since then.
The National Marine Sanctuary System includes 14 sites nationwide
that serve as living laboratories, classrooms, and playgrounds for all
Americans by making areas of the ocean realm manageable and accessible
for state and local partners, research centers, educators, and other
partners. The most recent addition to the system is the newly
designated (June 2006) Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National
Monument, which provides 140,000 square miles with the nation's highest
form of marine environmental protection, while preserving access for
native cultural activities and allowing for carefully regulated
educational and scientific activities.
During this fiscal year 2008 appropriations process, we urge you to
be the ocean champion that this country so desperately needs by
supporting a $4.5 billion appropriation for NOAA, which would
collectively provide critical funding for many important ocean programs
and activities around the nation, including the National Marine
Sanctuary System, the Ocean Exploration Program, the National Sea Grant
College Program, the Education Initiative, and many others. Such NOAA
programs are not only vital to our nation's environment, economy, and
competitiveness, but also to the health and well being of every
resident of your state.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee and
provide oral testimony on the Department of Commerce fiscal year 2008
appropriations. We support full funding for the NOAA Fisheries and
NOAA-National Ocean Service (NOS) budgets that include appropriations
necessary for key Federal and State partnerships with the twenty Treaty
Indian Tribes in Western Washington. We would like to highlight the
following requests:
summary of fiscal year 2008 appropriations request
NWIFC Specific Requests:
--$100 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund with a $9
million allocation for the twenty affected Treaty Tribes in
Western Washington for their management responsibilities and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission along with support
language (NOAA/National Marine Fisheries)
--$500,000 for Coastal Marine Resource Management
$100 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund with a $9
million allocation for the twenty affected Treaty Tribes in
Western Washington and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission
The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) is a multi-state,
multi-tribe program established by Congress in fiscal year 2000 with a
primary goal to help recover wild salmon throughout the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska. The PCSRF seeks to aid the conservation,
restoration and sustainability of Pacific salmon and their habitats by
financially supporting and leveraging local and regional efforts.
Recognizing the need for flexibility among Tribes and the States to
respond to salmon recovery priorities in their watersheds, Congress
earmarked the funds for salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock
enhancement, salmon research, and implementation of the 1999 Pacific
Salmon Treaty Agreement and related agreements. PCSRF is making a
significant contribution to the recovery of wild salmon throughout the
region. Since the program's inception, Pacific coastal Tribes,
including the 20 Treaty Tribes in Western Washington, who are members
of the NWIFC, have used PCSRF monies to remove 79 fish passage
barriers-opening up 47 stream miles; restore 282 miles of instream
habitat; restore 747 acres and 113 stream miles of riparian habitat;
restore 129 acres of wetland habitat and protect 288 acres of habitat
through land acquisition, easement or lease. The Tribes are using these
funds to implement the recovery plan for ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook
recently approved by NOAA. However, even though Tribes were to receive
at least a 10 percent set aside from PCSRF funding every year, the $90
million base dropped to $67 million in fiscal year 2006 and Tribes were
disproportionately cut to $4.4 million. Restoration of these funds to
support this important recovery work by the Tribes is vital.
$500,000 for Coastal Marine Resource Management
The NOAA/Marine Sanctuary Program has provided nominal funding from
its base to enable the four coastal Tribes to effectively participate
in sanctuary management, based on the federal/state/tribal Memorandum
of Understanding that established the Intergovernmental Policy Council
earlier this year. National programs currently are in place and budgets
exist and are funded for the NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program.
Early planning and negotiation has occurred, setting the framework for
Pacific Ocean planning. This funding will allow Tribes to build their
staffing expertise and support their policy involvement in the later
detailed work processes.
The economic value associated with effective marine resource
protection is huge. Not only are marine areas crucial for our natural
resources and those that use them; they are bridges of commerce between
nations and continents. Healthy oceans are essential if we value stable
climates that will sustain our economies and our lives. Tribes must be
partners in the efforts to research, clean up and restore the environs
necessary to deal with such problems as:
--Damage to Dungeness Crab Fisheries--The State commercial crab
season annually nets more than 20 million pounds of Dungeness
crab, valued at nearly $1 billion. Tribes presently harvest a
fraction of that amount. Yet declining salmon runs caused by
lost and degraded habitat have made fisheries such as those for
Dungeness crab increasingly important to Tribal communities.
--Groundfish, such as black cod, whiting and halibut have also grown
in economic importance to Tribes. Unfortunately, just as
coastal Treaty Tribes are beginning to fully access some of
their treaty-reserved harvest of groundfish, several rockfish
species have declined sharply. As a result, severe harvest
restrictions have had to be implemented, threatening the
cultural, spiritual and economic vitality of coastal Treaty
Tribes.
As co-managers of groundfish with the Federal and State
governments, Tribes want to work collaboratively to address a
significant lack of data on groundfish populations. Better data will
enable Tribes to make more informed management decisions. Better data
also facilitates the move to an ecosystem-based management approach
that takes into consideration the differences among groundfish
populations in different areas.
Tribes have proven that we can bridge different interests for the
good of the whole. Tribes have been actively involved in marine issues
off the coast of Washington. As described earlier, Tribes, NOAA and the
State of Washington have jointly signed a working MOU to guide Olympic
Marine Sanctuary planning and implementation. The Tribes also
participate in the State Ocean Policy Workgroup. Besides State and
Federal government partners, the Tribes work closely with business,
industry, sportsman and commercial fishing groups, environmental and
community groups and individuals. Incidentally, Tribes are also key
partners in the Puget Sound Shared Salmon Strategy and the Puget Sound
Partnership. Tribal leaders have consistently been early advocates,
leaders and technicians as these efforts were brought to fruition.
background
When our ancestors signed treaties, ceding millions of acres of
land to the United States government, they reserved fishing, hunting
and gathering rights in all traditional areas. These Constitutionally-
protected treaties, the Federal Trust Responsibility and extensive case
law, including the U.S. v. Washington Decision of 1974, all
consistently support the role of Tribes as natural resource managers,
on and off reservation. In Washington State, these provisions have
developed into a generally successful co-management process between the
Federal, State and Tribal governments. The co-management route is the
one and only path that leads to true sustainability in our region, and
is the tool that must be used to meet the many environmental challenges
we face, such as polluted and over-appropriated waters, species decline
and climate change. Treaties are nation-to-nation accords, and Tribes
have always been outstanding natural resource managers and stewards of
the land.
However, the Federal government has chosen to cut funding to Tribal
natural resource management programs over the past six years. There is
no question that this jeopardizes the bond of trust between our
governments. It also jeopardizes management programs and infrastructure
critically important to co-management and to the health and vitality of
natural resources, and the Tribal and non-tribal people they sustain.
The timing of funding cuts could not have been worse. We are facing
many environmental and natural resource management challenges in the
Pacific Northwest, caused by human population expansion and urban
sprawl, increased pollution problems ranging from storm water runoff to
de-oxygenated or ``dead'' areas in the Hood Canal, parts of Puget Sound
and in the ocean off the coast. The pathway to the future is clear to
us. The Federal, State and Tribal governments must strengthen our bond
and move forward, together, with the determination and vigor it will
take to preserve our heritage. Together, we must focus on the needs of
our children, with an eye on the lessons of the past.
our message
Our message to you now is that achieving such objectives requires
adequate funding. The Tribes strive to implement their co-management
authority and responsibility through cooperative and collaborative
relationships with the state and local communities. We constantly seek
ways to restore and manage these precious natural resources in a manner
that can be supported by all who live in this area. The work the Tribes
do benefits all the citizens of the State of Washington, the region and
the nation. But the increasing challenges I have described and the
growing demand for our participation in natural resource/environmental
management requires increased investments of time, energy and funding.
Restoring and protecting these natural resources is essential to the
economy and the quality of life that is so valued by those who live in
the Northwest.
We are sensitive to the budget challenges that Congress faces. We
recognize that this Administration has greatly reduced the allocation
to discretionary domestic spending during the last several years, which
makes it increasingly difficult to address the many requests you
receive. Still, we urge you to maintain and increase the allocation and
appropriations for priority ecosystem management initiatives. The need
for an ecosystem-based management approach for Washington's marine
waters have come into sharp focus in recent years. Major studies by the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Charitable Trust, and the
appearance of the low-oxygen dead zones are clear signals that the
health of our rivers and marine waters is in rapid decline. In its
report, ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,'' the Ocean
Commission essentially concluded that the oceans are sick, and
estimated the costs for reversing declines and restoring coasts and
oceans nationwide at about $4 billion annually. Follow through on that
report has obviously not approached that level of investment--and it
might not for some time. But, for the sake of sustainable health,
economies and the natural heritage that sustains them, it is critically
important for Congress to do more than it has, and to direct federal
agencies to do even more to coordinate their efforts with State and
Tribal governments.
In Washington State, the Ocean Policy Workgroup, created by Gov.
Chris Gregoire, was an outgrowth of the Ocean Commission. This group
consists of 20 members, made up of state agency heads, legislators, the
Governor's Office and Tribes. Among the group's recommendations was the
creation of a governing board and council, with representatives from
management agencies and Tribes, scientific communities, and stakeholder
groups, to establish management needs, align research priorities and
monitor the progress through specific work plans. We have been actively
engaged in this process, and see great value in continuing our
participation. We also look forward to increased participation in
multi-state agreements and efforts on the Pacific Coast as well as the
Puget Sound Estuary. Tribes hope to stay active with the Ocean Policy
Workgroup, as well as with such programs as the Oil Spill Advisory
Committee. Early this year, the coastal Treaty Indian Tribes, the State
of Washington and the U.S. Government created a policy council to guide
the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. An MOA between the parties
has resulted in the creation of an Inter-governmental Policy Council
with members from each coastal Tribe and the State to ensure
coordinated and comprehensive management of the sanctuary and its
resources. Related to all of these efforts, we look forward to
participating in the development of a coast-wide cooperative ecosystem
management approach in response to the Ocean Commission Report.
As frequently attributed to Chief Seattle (Sealth), Tribes believe
all things are connected. That is why we believe only through a
holistic ecosystem management approach can we find success in achieving
a healthy environment and robust natural resources. We believe failure
to deal with the natural resource/environmental challenges forced upon
us, with an ecosystem approach, can only result in ruinous impacts on
treaty-protected resources.
All of this requires adequate funding.
conclusion
Clearly, Western Washington Tribes are leaders in the Northwest
salmon recovery effort. The Tribes possess the legal authority,
technical and policy expertise, and effective programs to address
impacts on wild salmon from harvest and hatcheries. The Tribes are
strategically located in each of the major watersheds, and no other
group of people knows salmon like the Tribes. No one else so deeply
depends on salmon for their cultural, spiritual and economic survival
either, although the habitat and salmon restoration work we do will
definitely benefits everyone who lives here. Tribes seize every
opportunity to coordinate with other governments, and non-governmental
entities, to avoid duplication, maximize positive impacts and emphasize
the application of holistic ecosystem management. We continue to
participate in salmon recovery, habitat restoration, etc. on an equal
level with the State, because we understand the great value of such
cooperation. It is said that salmon are our miners' canary. They
absolutely depend on clean water and healthy habitat--and so do we. We
ask Congress to help us in the effort to restore salmon, other species
and habitat by supporting our funding requests.
I thank the Committee for allowing me this opportunity to make
these budget requests of the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations for the
Department of Commerce.
______
Prepared Statement of the Population Association of America/Association
of Population Centers
introduction
Thank you, Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and other
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to
express support for the Census Bureau and the National Science
Foundation (NSF), two agencies important to the Population Association
of America and the Association of Population Centers (PAA/APC).
background on the paa/apc and demographic research
The PAA is an interdisciplinary, scientific organization comprised
of over 3,000 research professionals, including demographers,
economists, sociologists, and statisticians. The APC is a similar
organization comprised of over 30 universities and research groups that
foster collaborative demographic research and data sharing, translate
basic population research for policy makers, and provide educational
and training opportunities in population studies.
Demography is the study of populations and how and why they change.
Demographers, as well as other population researchers, collect and
analyze data on trends in births, deaths, immigration and disabilities
as well as racial, ethnic and socioeconomic changes in populations.
Among the major policy issues, population researchers study the
demographic causes and consequences of population aging, trends in
fertility, marriage, divorce and their effects on the health and well
being of children, and immigration and migration and how these patterns
affect the ethnic and cultural diversity of our population and the
nation's health and environment.
PAA/APC members rely on a number of federal agencies charged with
funding demographic research and generating reliable, accessible data.
The ability of our members to produce meaningful research, often used
to inform policy decisions, requires the use of substantial data sets
and support for research projects and research training.
the census bureau
The Census Bureau is the premier source of information about the
American people and the U.S. economy. In addition to the decennial
census and the American Community Survey, the Census supports a variety
of surveys to measure changes in individual and household demographic
and economic conditions. PAA and APC members rely on accessible data
produced by the Census Bureau to conduct their research.
national science foundation
The mission of NSF is to promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the
national defense. The demography of our population directly impacts the
health, prosperity, welfare, and security of our nation. NSF support of
demographic research, particularly its support of large-scale
longitudinal surveys, such as the General Social Survey and Panel Study
of Income Dynamics, is central to the agency's mission and essential
for the field of population research. NSF provides about 20 percent of
all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges
and universities, including basic behavioral and social research.
Demographic research also depends on support from NSF for support of
individual research projects and research centers.
recommendations
PAA and APC urge you to support the Administration's request for
the Census Bureau, which is $1.23 billion in fiscal year 2008.
Substantial preparation is required to ensure the success of an
accurate 2010 Census and fully implemented American Community Survey.
In 2008, the Census Bureau will be conducting the only dress rehearsal
of the decennial census. The rehearsal, which will be conducted in San
Joaquin County, California, and nine counties in the Fayetteville area
of North Carolina, will evaluate the integrated census plan in a
census-like environment. Also, in 2008, the Bureau will design and test
a system for capturing and processing census data, open 12 regional
census centers nationwide, and verify address information submitted by
state, local, and Tribal governments. All of these key planning, or
ramping up, activities are central to the success of the 2010 Census.
Thus, it is imperative the Bureau receive the Administration's request
in 2008. Receiving anything less than the President's request,
jeopardizes the accuracy of the 2010 Census, increasing the chances of
over counts, undercounts, and, ultimately, geographic misallocations of
federal resources, and threatens the availability of key demographic
and economic data researchers and policymakers require.
PAA and APC, as members of the Coalition for National Science
Funding, support the President's budget request for NSF in fiscal year
2008, which is $6.43 billion. This budget will enable the NSF Social,
Behavioral and Economic Science Directorate (SBE) to continue its
support of social science surveys and a rich population research
portfolio. Furthermore, the proposed budget will enable SBE to fully
implement the Science of Science and Innovation Policy initiative. The
goal of this initiative is to develop an evidence-based platform from
which policymakers and researchers may assess the impacts of the
Nation's science and engineering enterprise.
The Census Bureau and the National Science Foundation support,
indirectly and directly, the collection and availability of rich data
sources to PAA/APC members. Our economists, statisticians, and social
survey design experts rely on federally supported data to conduct their
research and inform public policy. Investments in these data sets are
investments in good policy.
Thank you for considering our requests and for supporting federal
programs that benefit the field of demographic research.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Marine Laboratories
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) I am pleased to
submit this statement in strong support of the research and education
programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction that are vitally
important for a vibrant oceans, coastal, and Great Lakes research and
education enterprise. I will focus my remarks on four key areas:
federal extramural research funding, innovation and competitiveness,
implementation of ocean commission recommendations and other federal
ocean research reports, and ocean education, literacy and workforce
development.
NAML (www.naml.org) is a nonprofit organization of over 120
institutions employing more than 10,000 scientists, engineers, and
professionals and representing ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
laboratories stretching from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico, Guam to
Bermuda, and from Alaska to Puerto Rico. NAML labs support the conduct
of high quality ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research and education
in the natural and social sciences and the effective use of that
science for decision-making on the important issues that face our
country.
federal support for extramural ocean, coastal and great lakes research
and infrastructure
NAML strongly urges federal commitment to enhance support for
cutting-edge ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and
infrastructure across federal funding agencies.
The marine sciences have much to offer the Nation as it seeks to
strengthen its ability to innovate and compete in today's global
economy. They are inherently interdisciplinary, address science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, push the
envelope in terms of technology development, test the boundaries of our
data collection and analysis systems, and offer an effective training
ground for future scientists and engineers. NAML asks that the value of
extramural research funding at all relevant federal agencies not be
overlooked, but recognized as essential to the overall progress of
coastal, ocean and Great Lakes science and education. Further, in order
to support this research and ensure that this country is achieving the
best possible results, all types of infrastructure-marine laboratories,
observatories, ships, underwater vehicles, and satellites-must be
supported across the board.
--National Science Foundation.--NAML supports increased federal
funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) consistent
with the President's budget request of $6.5 billion for fiscal
year 2008. Basic research and the transfer and use of the
knowledge developed through research are vital for the long-
term economic competitiveness and national security of this
Nation. NSF provides vital support for basic research and
education which enhances public understanding of the Nation's
oceans, coastal areas, and the Great Lakes. NSF also provides
important support for basic laboratory facilities,
instrumentation, support systems, computing and related
cyberinfrastructure, and ship access. The final report of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy makes several recommendations
on the need to develop and enhance ocean, coastal and Great
Lakes research infrastructure. To that end, NAML strongly
supports the development of the Ocean Observatories Initiative
at NSF. Further, NAML urges the Subcommittee to significantly
enhance the NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program
and its Field Stations and Marine Laboratories (FSML) program.
FSML is of particular interest to marine labs as it provides
researchers with access to state of the art instrumentation for
research and education and necessary cyberinfrastructure and
data management systems that compliment the Ocean Observatories
Initiative. We urge the Subcommittee to double the modest FSML
budget from $2.5 million to $5 million for fiscal year 2008 and
further request that the program ultimately be increased to $10
million annually.
--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--NAML requests a
top-line appropriation of $4.5 billion for NOAA for fiscal year
2008. This is consistent with the position take by the Friends
of NOAA (www.friendsofnoaa.org) coalition which represents a
diverse group of NOAA stakeholders.
A Congressionally requested study of NOAA's research programs,
entitled, Review of the Organization and Management of Research
in NOAA completed August 2004, concluded that extramural
research is critical to accomplishing NOAA's mission. The
access to such enhanced research capacities provides NOAA with
world-class expertise not found in NOAA laboratories;
connectivity with planning and conduct of global science; means
to leverage external funding sources; facilitation of multi-
institution cooperation; access to vast and unique research
facilities; and access to graduate and undergraduate students.
Academic scientists also benefit from working with NOAA, in
part, by learning to make their research more directly relevant
to management and policy. It is an important two-way
interaction and exchange of information.
NAML strongly supports robust NOAA extramural research activities
expressed though such programs as the National Sea Grant
College Program, the National Undersea Research Program (NURP),
Ocean Exploration, research related to aquaculture, invasive
species, and the various joint and cooperative institutes
supported by NOAA. The Bush Administration has proposed to
maintain the Sea Grant program at $55 million for the third
straight year. Sea Grant is already feeling the pinch of a
flat-funding environment and the President's request will only
further hinder the programs' ability to address local, regional
and national ocean research and education needs. A budget of
$72 million for Sea Grant will allow the program to mend past
cuts and address emerging needs facing our coasts. In addition,
the Bush Administration has proposed to the merge NURP with the
Ocean Exploration program. NAML hopes that if or when this
merger comes to fruition the new program will still provide an
extramural research component that is so valued by the research
community. While the merger of the two programs is still under
development, we support funding NURP at $20 million and Ocean
Exploration at $28 million for fiscal year 2008. These noted
partnership programs are not only consistent with the findings
of the August 2004 review of NOAA research, but are also
consistent with NOAA's missions. As such they should be
strongly supported and made accessible to the ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes research community on a competitive basis.
NAML is encouraged that the Administration has included in its
budget request for fiscal year 2008 a line for the development
of an Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) within NOAA with
$16 million set aside for initial funding. However, the amount
needed to sustain and enhance current observing system efforts
by the research community is closer to $100 million annually.
Integrated observations offer critical information on coastal
processes necessary for addressing issues, such as the health
of humans and marine life, weather and climate nowcasts and
forecasts, homeland security, and resource management. Much
work is still needed to shape the federal government's
involvement in IOOS and larger global observing efforts. NAML
urges the Subcommittee to provide adequate funding for IOOS in
fiscal year 2008 consistent with the needs of the community.
--National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--NASA's support for
earth and space sciences is vital in helping us better
understand our planet. NASA's Earth Science Applications theme
benchmarks practical uses of NASA-sponsored observations from
Earth observation systems and predictions from Earth science
models. The National Academy of Sciences released a report \1\
this year which calls on NASA to ``renew its investment in
Earth observing systems and restore its leadership in Earth
science and applications.'' NAML is one of many groups that
believe we need a balanced investment in NASA that will
maintain a strong and vibrant earth and space science
enterprise. If we are concerned about the fate of the planet,
NASA's support for science is absolutely crucial to
understanding and ultimately deciding how to address the
concerns we are facing. NAML urges the Subcommittee to renew
its investment in the NASA Earth Science budget for fiscal year
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives
for the Next Decade and Beyond, Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the
Future, National Research Council, January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
innovation and competitiveness
NAML strongly supports efforts by the Administration and Congress
to strengthen the nation's position as a world leader in scientific
innovation and competitiveness.
As the Nation seeks to expand its investment in the physical
sciences to increase its international competitiveness, NAML calls on
the Subcommittee to recognize the integrated and strategic relationship
between all scientific and engineering disciplines and to support an
enhanced investment in science and technology across the board as part
of any long-term economic competitiveness policy. NAML is encouraged
that the federal government has begun focusing on the physical sciences
for targeted funding increases, particularly through efforts to double
the budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the next 10
years. However, we must ensure that the entire breadth of the physical
sciences, which include the earth and ecosystem sciences as well, is
supported so we do not hinder this nation's true innovative potential.
Other federal agencies involved in the ``physical sciences'' need to be
supported within the context of innovation, namely the extramural
research programs within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Improvements in the quality of education
provided to our students with a strong foundation in math and science
as well as support for universities and laboratories that provide
world-class education and research opportunities will only benefit the
nation and its science enterprise. As the Subcommittee sets its funding
priorities for the year we hope it will consider the relevance of NOAA
and NASA to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.
implementation of ocean commission recommendations and other federal
ocean research reports
NAML continues to strongly support implementation of the
recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) \2\.
In addition, NAML looks forward to the implementation of the
interagency Ocean Research Priorities Plan (2007) \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, April 20, 2004.
\3\ Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for
the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy, NSTC Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology,
January, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAML believes that public policy with respect to the nation's
oceans, coasts and Great Lakes should always be based on sound science
and the most up-to-date information. The U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy's analysis of existing policies and future needs has resulted in
a collection of bold and broad-reaching recommendations for reform. The
Congress has taken these recommendations to heart in recent years and
has begun addressing the nation's ocean needs. Federal implementation
of these recommendations will enable the United States to maintain and
strengthen its role as a world leader in protecting and sustaining the
planet's oceans and coasts. NAML is particularly supportive of the
Commission's recommendation to re-align NOAA's functions to support
ecosystem-based management approaches. In addition, we fully endorse
the Commission's recommendations to double the federal investment in
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research as well as its recommendation
to promote a strong federal investment in ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes education, outreach, and stewardship.
As the Bush Administration states in its decade-focused Ocean
Research Priorities Plan, ``Scientific discovery driven by competitive
peer-reviewed investigations is the foundation of the nation's research
enterprise.'' This plan identifies the nation's most urgent short- and
longer-term ocean research needs. NAML is encouraged that the
Administration proposed new funding for ocean issues in its budget
request for fiscal year 2008. However, we urge the Administration and
Congress to not overlook the importance of the extramural research
community to the implementation of the plan's goals. The external
research community stands equipped and ready to assist the federal
government in implementing its identified priorities. NAML hopes that
the dedication to ocean, coastal and Great Lakes issues expressed by
the federal government in recent years will continue and be further
enhanced to ensure that the external research community is being
utilized to the fullest extent possible as the valuable resource that
it is. In order to be successful, the federal government will need to
look to the extramural research community to tap into existing
capabilities to ensure that they are taking the most practical approach
to ocean governance.
ocean education, literacy, outreach and workforce development
NAML believes that an ocean literate populace will lead to a well-
informed and safe nation. NAML encourages the federal government to
strengthen its commitment to enhancing ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
education, literacy and outreach as well as workforce development.
A strong national ocean policy can only be sustained with the most
up-to-date and reliable scientific information. To ensure that the
nation will continue to have the ability to address emerging ocean
issues in the future, investments are needed today in coastal, ocean,
and Great Lakes education programs that support learning at all age
levels, by all disciplines, and for all Americans. NAML strongly
supports the NSF Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence (COSEE)
program, NSF education and human resources generally, and NOAA's Office
of Education. Such programs provide a rich environment for which
collaborations and partnerships flourish. A greater understanding of
the oceans and coastal ecosystems will instill in the American
population a sense of stewardship for these important environments.
These programs also yield a diverse workforce that includes a
significant percentage from underrepresented groups. Preparing these
cultural bridges would allow us to capitalize upon diverse national
strengths, ensuring the flow of intellectual talent into ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes-related fields.
NAML member laboratories contribute to maintaining a competitive
and first-rate marine research and education workforce by providing a
unique training ground that is conducive to on-the-job learning and
mentoring. Marine labs, because of their flexibility and
interdisciplinary nature, are leaders in addressing science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education disciplines
and hope to see support for these disciplines enhanced. Marine labs are
also committed to enhancing diversity within the field of ocean,
coastal and Great Lakes research and education by fostering
relationships with community colleges and minority-serving institutions
(MSIs) to provide distinctive learning opportunities for individuals
who may not otherwise have an opportunity to participate in ocean,
coastal and Great Lakes research. NAML hopes to be seen as a model to
the nation for this type of collaboration.
The 2006 Conference on Ocean Literacy (CoOL), which convened in
Washington, DC, and at satellite sites throughout the country, provided
an unprecedented national platform for discussion on the essential
principles of ocean literacy and the current challenges and
opportunities for both formal and informal education efforts in
educating the public to make informed, responsible decisions about the
ocean and its resources. NAML hopes that the topics addressed during
this conference will continue to reach policymakers and the general
public and will shape future ocean, coastal and Great Lakes education
policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to express these views on behalf of
the National Association of Marine Laboratories. We hope the
Subcommittee will take these points into consideration as you move
forward in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sea Grant Association
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Sea
Grant Association (SGA) I respectfully submit this written testimony
for the official record. Thank you for the opportunity to express these
views. The Sea Grant Association joins with other stakeholders in
urging the Subcommittee to recognize and support the vital research and
outreach programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The community requests that the Subcommittee
fund NOAA at $4.5 billion in fiscal year 2008. This is a modest request
when considering the immense impact such an increase would have in
terms of assisting NOAA in carrying out its mission: to understand and
predict changes in the Earth's environment and conserve and manage
coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social, and
environmental needs. Further, SGA requests that, within the overall
fiscal year 2008 appropriation for NOAA, the Subcommittee appropriate
$72 million in base funding for the National Sea Grant College Program.
I will use the remainder of this statement to discuss why it is so
important to support Sea Grant at realistic levels this year and in the
future.
The National Sea Grant College Program is a key component of NOAA's
extramural research, education and outreach enterprise. This request of
$72 million is well within the $103 million authorized for fiscal year
2008 in Public Law 107-299, National Sea Grant College Program Act
Amendments of 2002, and consistent with the level of base funding
approved by your Subcommittee (Commerce, Justice and Science) last
year. Further it is the amount supported in the Senate Dear Colleague
Letter for Sea Grant which was submitted with 27 signatures to the
Subcommittee on March 29, 2007 by Senators Maria Cantwell and Olympia
Snowe.
The Bush Administration's request of $55 million for fiscal year
2008 would put Sea Grant at a hard freeze for the third year in a row.
Implications of such a freeze for the nation with respect to the
economy, sustainability of natural resources, and national safety and
security are significant. With the costs of research and education
rising, the flat-funding of Sea Grant during the last few years have
forced programs to cut jobs and leave countless high-quality research
and outreach projects unsupported. The Sea Grant network cannot sustain
current activities, staff, and operations within this budget scenario.
This request of $72 million would allow Sea Grant to sustain ongoing
research and education efforts, address emerging needs, and continue
assisting NOAA in carrying out its many missions.
science serving the nation's coasts
Research and outreach programs supported by Sea Grant are based on
competition, undergo rigorous peer-review, and are geared to address
the many marine, coastal and Great Lakes challenges and opportunities
that face our citizens. The federal investment in Sea Grant enables a
nationally coordinated network embedded in the best research
universities to apply unparalleled intellectual capital to address
these problems and opportunities while assisting NOAA in addressing its
missions. Cost-effectiveness is enhanced by access to existing
university management infrastructure.
Sea Grant serves the nation in many ways. Sea Grant's unmatched
access to regional, state and local constituencies through its
extension and outreach programs ensures that the federal investment is
targeted at relevant issues. The Sea Grant model contributes to the
missions of NOAA and other federal agencies, and state and local
governments, to the benefit of the general public. In addition, marine
education programs supported by Sea Grant funds reach from kindergarten
to marine-related business people to elder hostels.
Sea Grant is a national program addressing national, regional,
state and local needs. It is a partnership among government, academia,
business, industry, scientists, and private citizens to help Americans
understand and wisely use our precious coastal waters and Great Lakes
for enjoyment and long-term economic growth. This network unites 32
Programs, over 300 universities, and millions of people. Sea Grant is
an agent for scientific discovery, technology transfer, economic
growth, resource conservation, and public education. It is government
as our citizens want it--visible, tangible, relevant, efficient, and
effective.
an economic driver
Sea Grant is an investment in America's economic future. Attempts
to balance our booming coastal economy with its associated impacts on
the coastal and marine environment have raised the stakes for effective
government action. America's ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources
encompass an immense area with more than 95,000 miles of coastline and
more than 3.4 million square miles of ocean within the U.S. territorial
sea. Over half the nation's 280 million people live in coastal counties
that comprise less than one-fifth of the total land area of the United
States. The economy of these coastal counties is critical to the
economic well being of the entire nation, providing a wide array of
goods and services that account for at least 50 percent of the gross
national product of the United States. By 2010, U.S. foreign trade in
goods is expected to double to $5 trillion, with ocean-going cargo
increasing by 30 percent. Coastal tourism and recreation account for 85
percent of all U.S. tourism revenues. The oceans, in one way or
another, account for one out of every six jobs. Tax revenues in coastal
areas are among the fastest growing revenue sources for state and local
governments. In fact, the collective economic impact of the coastal
economy far exceeds U.S. agriculture, and yet federal investments in
Sea Grant colleges and universities are much smaller than investments
in the Land Grant college and university system funded by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for agriculture and land-based natural
resource activities, the program after which Sea Grant was modeled.
Sea Grant has been leading the quest for practical solutions by
providing research and education on national coastal and Great Lakes
issues for four decades. Federal dollars appropriated to the Sea Grant
program are leveraged and matched by state and private funds by at
least 2 to 1, some states matching 60 percent or more. The matched
federal investment fills an enormous demand for expertise to tackle
rapid growth, change, and pressure on coastal resources. In addition,
the 32 Sea Grant programs, located in every coastal, Great Lakes and
Gulf Coast state, conduct policy-relevant research linked to an
extensive outreach and education network. This structure ensures that
Sea Grant research is useful to coastal resource managers at the
regional, state and local levels, marine-related businesses and
industries, and most importantly the general public. Some examples
where Sea Grant has contributed to economic growth and vitality at the
local, state and regional levels include:
--Following the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the
Gulf Coast in 2005, approximately 3,000 commercial and 35,000
to 40,000 recreational boats were in need of salvage due to the
storms. The Washington and Alaska Sea Grant Programs donated a
surplus 60-ton Traveliftr from Alaska to Plaquemine Parish,
Louisiana. Without that hoist to move displaced boats to dry
land for repair, fishermen affected by the hurricanes would
have been out of work for several years, potentially costing
millions of dollars in loss to the fishing industry.
--Sea Grant plays an instrumental role in nature-based tourism by
promoting low impact uses of natural resources. For example,
efforts to develop state designated underwater preserves have
led to new diving activity in Great Lakes coastal communities
providing an economic stimulus of at least $1.5 million over a
two-year period.
--Sea Grant saved taxpayers $120,000 in the annual Beach Sweep/River
Sweep litter cleanup program in South Carolina. Over the past
14 years, more than 75,000 volunteers have collected 728 tons
of trash and have saved state taxpayers more than $1.6 million.
--Sea Grant research efforts to develop new drugs from marine
organisms have resulted in discovery and description of more
than 1,000 compounds that may be vitally important to the
health industry.
--Sea Grant training at 5,000 seafood processing plants will prevent
20,000 to 60,000 seafood-related illnesses a year, which could
cost consumers as much as $115 million annually.
--Sea grant specialists are working directly with seaport managers,
resource managers, commercial interests and the general public
to address issues associated with ports, harbors and marine
transportation--ecological and economic centers of America's
coasts. For example, in Southern California, Sea Grant
continues to educate local businesses on maritime security and
business continuity in this, the busiest port complex in the
United States.
--Sea Grant research and extension work with hybrid striped bass
aquaculture has expanded this species from being a
demonstration project ten years ago to a $25 million annual
business.
--In North Carolina, 200 of the 205 new oceanfront homes built to the
Sea Grant hurricane standards survived Hurricane Fran in 1996,
compared to more than 500 older oceanfront houses in the same
area that were destroyed.
a local approach to addressing national priorities
Sea Grant has established long-standing working relationships with
a broad spectrum of stakeholders in every coastal state. Because it is
science-based and non-regulatory, Sea Grant is viewed as an honest
broker among a wide range of constituents. The U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy called on Congress in its 2004 report to expand the Sea Grant
program in conjunction with a doubling of all ocean and coastal
research funding. Further, in January 2007, the Bush Administration
released its inter-agency Ocean Research Priorities Plan and
Implementation Strategy, Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the
United States for the Next Decade. Several of the plan's most important
priorities dovetail with Sea Grant's strength, experience, and
relationships with state and local decision makers and ocean, coastal
and Great Lakes resource managers. Here are just two examples:
Sea Grant Increases Resiliency to Natural Hazards.--Coastal areas
of the United States comprise only 10 percent of our nation's land
mass, yet they are home to over half of all Americans. As witnessed by
recent record-breaking storm seasons, coastal communities and the
natural resources and infrastructure on which they depend are at
increasing risk from hurricanes, tsunamis, coastal storms, shoreline
change, and sea level rise. Sea Grant institutions and their partners
pool research, education and outreach capabilities to enhance
mitigation, preparedness, planning, education, response, and recovery
in coastal communities throughout the nation. As a result of the 2005
hurricanes, Sea Grant is working to improve storm modeling and
community resiliency through regional research initiatives. In
addition, Sea Grant is working closely with coastal communities to
develop and implement long-term planning that will allow communities to
become more resilient to storm events.
Sea Grant is a Dedicated Steward of Natural and Cultural Ocean and
Great Lakes Resources.--Domestic seafood production has not kept pace
with consumer demand; the United States imports an ever-increasing
amount of seafood consumed domestically. Issues with quality assurance
and consistent supplies are increasing. At the same time, the nation's
commercial seafood industry is threatened by the loss of coastal access
and multiple use conflicts in coastal waters. Sea Grant institutions,
through the use of their fisheries extension, address the increasing
needs of the nation's seafood industry by utilizing expertise in
seafood safety and technology and marine aquaculture.
The above examples illustrate Sea Grant's connectivity to the
Administration's stated priorities. As the federal government works to
implement these priorities, we hope it will look to the National Sea
Grant College Program--a major component of NOAA's extramural research
arm--as a resource and as a partner.
The SGA recognizes and appreciates the difficult funding tradeoffs
the Subcommittee is forced to make each year. We urge you to consider
Sea Grant as an investment in the future health and well-being of our
coastal communities and support the program at $72 million in fiscal
year 2008.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views.
about the sga
The Sea Grant Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to
furthering the Sea Grant program concept. The SGA's regular membership
consists of the academic institutions that participate in the National
Sea Grant College Program, located within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). SGA provides the mechanism for these
institutions to coordinate their activities, to set program priorities
at both the regional and national level, and to provide a unified voice
for these institutions on issues of importance to the oceans, coasts
and Great Lakes. The SGA advocates for greater understanding, use, and
conservation of marine, coastal and Great Lakes resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Center for Victims of Crime
The National Center for Victims of Crime submits this testimony to
urge members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies to reject the Administration's proposed cancellation
of the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund. This proposal would result in
the removal of nearly $1.3 billion in funds currently designated to
support crime victim services programs. Moreover, it would change VOCA
from a reliable, offender-supported program to one dependent on annual
appropriations from the General Treasury. Such an action would be
disastrous for the state and local programs that already struggle to
meet the needs of all crime victims. We urge Subcommittee members to
instead raise the cap on VOCA Fund distributions by $375 million for
the 2008 fiscal year and to provide further program stability by
extending the time states have to spend this one-time increase in funds
from the current four years to six years.
As the leading national resource and advocacy organization for
victims of crime, the National Center knows the considerable and urgent
funding needs of those who serve crime victims. Since our founding in
1985, we have worked with public and nonprofit agencies throughout the
country, providing information, support, and technical assistance to
thousands of victims, victim service providers, allied professionals,
and advocates. Our toll-free information and referral Helpline alerts
us to the needs of crime victims nationwide. Through our Training
Institute and our daily interactions with both our members and the more
than 11,000 crime victim service providers in our referral network, we
stay informed of their work and know the impact of federal-level
funding decisions on their ability to meet the needs of victims. In
short, we hear from victims and service providers every day about the
impact and importance of the VOCA Fund.
Understanding the VOCA Fund
Congress created the VOCA Fund over twenty years ago to ensure on-
going, dedicated federal support for state and local programs for crime
victims. The Fund receives no taxpayer dollars; it is made up of solely
criminal fines and penalties imposed on federal offenders. Most of the
funds are distributed each year by formula grants to the states to
support two specific types of programs: (1) crime victim compensation
programs; and, (2) crime victim assistance programs.
Crime victim compensation programs directly reimburse crime victims
or their families for many of the out-of-pocket expenses that directly
result from the crime. These statutorily defined expenses include
medical and counseling costs, funeral bills, crime scene cleanup, and
lost wages. Essentially, these programs step in when victims have no
insurance, no workman's compensation, and no other assistance available
to help them meet expenses incurred as a result of the crime.
In addition to compensation programs, the VOCA Fund supports more
than 4,400 state and local victim assistance programs. Victim
assistance programs include rape crisis centers, domestic violence
shelters, victim assistants in law enforcement and prosecutor offices,
and other direct service providers for victims of crime. For instance,
the Fund supports: Child Protect, Inc., serving victims of child abuse
in Montgomery, Alabama; the Shenandoah Women's Center, serving victims
of domestic violence and sexual assault in Martinsburg, West Virginia;
an advocate for elder victims of domestic violence at the Women's
Community in Wausau, Wisconsin; Jackson Urban League, serving victims
of homicide in Jackson, Mississippi; Advocates for Survivors of Torture
and Trauma, serving victims of torture and war trauma in Baltimore,
Maryland; the state MADD office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and the
Virginia Network for Victims and Witnesses of Crime in Chesterfield,
Virginia.
VOCA assistance grant money is crucial in enabling both criminal
justice system-based and community programs to serve victims of crime.
As crime increases across the country, so too does the need for victim
services. If VOCA funding remains stagnant or becomes unreliable due to
a shift away from the current offender-supported system, states and
their subgrantees will be unable to adequately address the needs of
their communities. Moreover, their ability to reach more isolated and
vulnerable populations will be diminished.
Why the VOCA Fund Currently Has a Balance
Seven years ago, Congress acted to ensure the continuing stability
of VOCA funding. For many years, all the money collected in a given
year was disbursed during the following year. The nature of the funding
stream--criminal fines and penalties imposed on federal offenders--
caused the level of available funding to vary significantly. For
example, in some years, large fines against corporate offenders would
cause a surge in deposits. However, in 1999, Congress chose to reserve
a portion of the deposits from such years to offset lower collections
in leaner years by placing a cap on the amount of disbursements from
the Fund. The appropriations conference report noted that ``the
conferees have taken this action . . . to ensure that a stable level of
funding will remain available for these programs in future years.'' \1\
Therefore, as a result of this decision, a variable sum of money--
called the ``rainy day fund''--is routinely carried over from one
fiscal year into the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. Rep. No. 106-479, at 239 (1999) (Conf. Rep.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reject the Proposed Cancellation and Protect the VOCA Fund Balance
For the past two fiscal years, the Administration unsuccessfully
sought to rescind the balance of the VOCA Fund, withdrawing the money
from the ``rainy day fund'' and leaving the Fund with a zero balance.
The Administration's 2008 fiscal year budget request now seeks an
outright cancellation of the Fund, resulting in the transfer of the
current balance of the Fund to the General Treasury. Annual tax dollars
would be used to fund the $625 million VOCA cap, to be offset by
federal fines collected over the course of the year. Additionally, the
proposal would take $50 million from under the $625 million cap to be
designated for the emergency reserve, effectively lowering the amount
available to states.
Due to the Fund's allocation formulas, the impact of fluctuations
falls most heavily on victim assistance grants. A cancellation of the
VOCA Fund would eliminate the dedicated funding stream that has enabled
steady support for crime victim services. Each year, victim advocates
would have to lobby for funding, competing against each other and every
other federal budget item. Moreover, the proposed cancellation and
system shift would undermine the Fund's principal philosophy of
offender accountability as originally proposed by President Reagan's
1982 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. As Reagan
Administration Attorney General Ed Meese testified before a Senate
subcommittee last year, such a profound change ``would be a perversion
of the original concept of the Crime Victims Fund and would violate its
integrity.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Crime Victims Fund Rescission: Real Savings or Budget Gimmick?:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Fed. Financial Mgmt., Gov't Info., and
Int'l Security of the S. Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Ed Meese, Att'y Gen., Ronald
Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Pub. Pol'y and Chairman of the Ctr. for
Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2008 VOCA Funding Should Be Raised by $375 Million; States
Should Have Six Years to Spend This Money
Approximately 4,400 agencies rely on continued VOCA funding to
serve 3.8 million crime victims a year. \3\ Even so, the recent
increase in crime across the country has meant a heightened demand for
victim services. Moreover, victim service programs report an urgent
need to expand their outreach and service components in order to reach
all victim populations. Without increased VOCA funding, programs in all
fifty states and six additional jurisdictions will be unable to
adequately address the needs of their communities and may have to lay
off staff and limit, or even suspend, programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Victims
of Crime Act: 2005 Victim Assistance Grant Program Nationwide
Performance Report (2005); full text available at: http://www.ovc.gov/
fund/vocanpr_va05.html (accessed on April 11, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most underserved populations of crime victims is victims
with disabilities. Victims with mental or physical disabilities are
frequently targets for criminals, and face increased barriers in
seeking services. For example, studies have shown that almost two-
thirds of women with disabilities report abuse and violence;
additionally, in domestic violence situations, these women reported
staying with their batterers almost twice as long as women without
disabilities.\4\ However, only 35 percent of shelters recently surveyed
have disability awareness training for their staff and only 16 percent
have a dedicated staff person to deliver services to women with
disabilities.\5\ Without the proper training, shelters and victim
services programs cannot expect to adequately respond to the needs of
victims with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ M.E. Young et al., Prevalence of Abuse of Women with Physical
Disabilities, 78 Arch. Phys. Med. & Rehabil., Special Issue (1997).
\5\ Margaret A. Nosek, Ph.D., et al, Baylor College of Medicine,
Violence Against Women With Disabilities--Fact Sheet #1: Findings From
Studies 1992-2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, dating and sexual violence is frighteningly prevalent in
the youth population, yet there is a serious dearth of appropriate
services and resources geared toward helping this underserved age
group. One in three teens knows a friend or peer who has been hit,
punched, kicked, slapped, choked, or physically hurt by a dating
partner.\6\ Approximately 25 percent of high school girls have been the
victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or date rape.\7\
Understandably, many service providers express a strong desire to
expand their services to better serve teen victims of crime; however,
they lack the funding for the staff, training, and outreach programs
that would make this feasible.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Liz Claiborne Inc., Omnibuzz Topline Findings: Teen
Relationship Abuse Research (Feb. 2005).
\7\ See Cathy Schoen et al., The Commonwealth Fund, the
Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls (Nov. 1997).
\8\ See National Center for Victims of Crime, Results From the
National Center's 2006-2007 Public Policy Poll (a compilation of the
National Center's member responses to a survey regarding legislative
priorities, underserved victims in communities, coming legislative
sessions, and requests for general feedback); available at: http://
www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/
Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41511 (accessed on April 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service providers also recognize that there are significant
populations of immigrant victims of crime who do not have access to
services. These victims are often culturally and linguistically
isolated from the general society, making them vulnerable to crime but
also unaware of the services that can help them. Victim service
providers know that to make inroads in reaching these populations, they
must make an investment in personnel and in the time needed to build
trust with existing community members. Without additional funding, such
critical expansions in services, outreach, and programs are not
possible.
There are many other underserved populations of victims across the
country. In a recent National Center poll of our members, service
providers indicated a need to reach and serve homeless victims, victims
with mental illness, racial or ethnic minority victims, and victims who
are members of the GLBTQ population.\9\ Respondents also mentioned that
indigent or poor victims, incarcerated victims, and Native American
victims remain underserved and at risk for greater victimization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A one-time increase in VOCA funds, coupled with an extension of
time for states to use that extra funding, would allow the development
of services targeted at these vulnerable and underserved victim
populations. Such an investment of funding would enable victim service
providers to form partnerships with agencies already connected to and
trusted by those communities.
Raising the cap on VOCA Fund distributions by $375 million for the
2008 fiscal year would allow a comfortable Fund balance of
approximately $300 million to remain for future years to help guarantee
reliable funding for victim services programs. Moreover, it would
ensure that the money collected from offenders was actually used for
the purpose for which it was originally designed and authorized by law.
Finally, allowing six instead of four years to spend VOCA grant money
would provide states with the flexibility necessary to address the
specific assistance needs of their communities.
Conclusion
In closing, we urge Congress to reject the Administration's
proposed cancellation and to affirm the vital importance of protecting
the VOCA Fund for years to come. Raising the VOCA Fund cap for the 2008
fiscal year by $375 million and extending the time states have to spend
the money to six years will permit states to reach additional victims
while ensuring the future stability of the Fund.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
This statement focuses on two areas: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and National Science Foundation (NSF).
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
nation's 34 American Indian Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC),
thank you for the opportunity to express our views and recommendations
for fiscal year 2008 on programs that directly affect our institutions.
summary of recommendations
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).--In fiscal
year 2001, tribal colleges established a formal cooperative agreement
with NASA for a project designed to increase access, participation, and
success of American Indians in high quality K-16 science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs. The agreement includes a
modest program to support TCU STEM education and research programs, as
well as a summer research opportunities program for TCU faculty and
students to participate in NASA research projects at the various NASA
centers around the country. This program and other minority-serving
programs have demonstrated success in improving STEM education and
research programs at TCUs and encouraging more American Indians and
other minorities to pursue degrees and careers in the hard sciences.
However, NASA recently reorganized its funding priorities resulting in
severe cuts in education programs overall and the near elimination of
this modest TCU program. We are requesting that no less than $2.5
million of the NASA budget be made available to continue to support TCU
STEM research and education programs.
--Strengthen NASA's Role in Developing the American STEM Workforce.--
The ability of NASA to help develop and train the American STEM
workforce has been severely undercut by NASA's current budget
policy. In general, we urge the Subcommittee to ensure that
funding for NASA education programs, particularly, those
targeting minority serving institutions, is restored to levels
necessary for a meaningful impact on the ability of Tribal
College and Universities and other MSIs to prepare their
students to enter the national science, technology, engineering
and mathematics workforce. We further urge the Subcommittee to
examine and address the disproportionate impact that NASA's
current budget priorities have on minority serving institutions
and minority students, which represent America's best hope for
securing a well trained STEM workforce in the future.
--National Science Foundation (NSF): Tribal Colleges and Universities
Program (TCUP).--Over the past seven years, this program has
provided vital assistance to TCUs as they build their capacity
to provide strong science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) teaching and learning programs for American
Indians. Since its inception, 29 of the 31 eligible TCUs have
participated in this program, along with six Alaska Native and
Native Hawaiian serving institutions. While the impact of the
TCUP program on Tribal Colleges and Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian institutions has been significant, the program funding
level has not grown above the initial $10 million/year, and can
no longer sufficiently address the needs of eligible
institutions. We request that the Subcommittee increase the
amount of funding for the NSF-TCU program by $5 million, for a
total of $15 million.
--TCU STEM Blue Ribbon Panel.--We request that funding be
appropriated to establish and support a Blue Ribbon Panel
comprised of national leaders in scientific research and
education, to be organized and convened by the National
Academies to (1) monitor and review developments and changing
policy issues related to STEM research and education at the
nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities; (2) examine and
evaluate the current state of Federal program opportunities
available to TCUs for developing and sustaining STEM education
and research programs; and (3) prepare a report recommending
strategies at all levels for improving STEM education and
research programs at TCUs. Sources of information that will be
reviewed by the Blue Ribbon Panel will include public symposia
organized by the Panel, published documents, and written
comments by members of the scientific research and education
community, and examination of past and current STEM education
and research programs at, and technical assistance programs
for, Tribal Colleges and Universities. We request that the
Subcommittee appropriate $500,000 for the purpose of
establishing this TCU STEM Blue Ribbon Panel.
justifications
In 2007, the report ``Rising above the Gathering Storm--Energizing
and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future'' (National
Academies Press (NAP) 2007) prepared by the Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy, warns that America's place as the
world's leader in science and technology is at risk. The report lists
the growing need for a competitive and qualified workforce and
government investment in national research and development as two
essential ingredients of a formula for maintaining America's continued
leadership in science and technology. This request addresses the role
of Tribal Colleges and Universities specifically and minority serving
institutions generally in these two critical areas.
America's minority serving institutions--Tribal Colleges and
Universities, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and
Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs)--are a primary provider of higher
education programming for their respective populations. Although only a
relative small percentage of colleges and universities in the country,
MSIs serve a much greater proportion of underrepresented minority
students, for example, HSIs are only about 6 percent of the higher
education institutions in the country, but produce 33 percent of
Hispanic science baccalaureates. HBCUs produce the same percentage for
African Americans (National Science Board, 2004). Studies have shown
the reservation-based American Indians attending mainstream
institutions of higher education have a failure rate of 70-80 percent.
However, these same students have a success rate of 70-80 percent at
TCUs. Despite these successes, Native Americans, African Americans and
Hispanics continue to be seriously underrepresented in the sciences
even as their numbers and proportion in higher education grow (National
Science Board (NSB), 2004). Supporting MSIs is critical for reaching
the growing number of underrepresented minority college students, the
next generation of scientists and engineers.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The NASA AIHEC Cooperative Agreement has served 27 Tribal Colleges
and Universities with support for faculty and student research at NASA
Centers, STEM course and curriculum development, research
instrumentation, research projects, professional development for STEM
faculty, and information infrastructure improvements supporting the
delivery of high quality STEM education and research programs. These
NASA-supported activities have impacted nearly 700 K-12 students and
teachers, 2,700 Tribal College and University students, and over 150
faculty members, significantly furthering TCU efforts at recruitment
and retention of American Indian students, and their preparation for
careers in science, engineering, and technology fields.
In 2007, NASA support for Tribal Colleges and Universities under
the NASA-AIHEC Cooperative Agreement was reduced from $1.2 million to
approximately $400,000. This reduction has necessitated a significant
re-scoping of the activities supported under the Cooperative Agreement,
and thereby has significantly reduced resources available to positively
affect the educational experience of American Indian students. In
addition, over the past two years, other vital TCU STEM programs funded
by NASA were eliminated entirely due to budget restructuring. For
example, a program to train TCU faculty at multiple campuses in
geospatial technologies, and another STEM education program involving a
TCU partnership with other key institutions of higher education were
both eliminated entirely. The funding for these and other programs must
be restored to a level at which a significant impact on the TCU
educational community can be realized.
National Science Foundation Programs
Since 2001, NSF's Tribal Colleges and Universities Program has been
a primary resource for Tribal Colleges and Universities and Alaska
Native/Native Hawaiian institutions to plan and develop STEM education
and research programs designed to respond to local and regional STEM
workforce challenges and opportunities. To date, 29 of the 31 eligible
TCUs have participated in the program, along with 6 Alaska Native and
Native Hawaiian serving institutions. Participating colleges and
universities have enhanced existing degree programs and developed
entirely new program offerings. Funded institutions have upgraded their
laboratory facilities, hired instructors, and introduced innovative
strategies to recruit and retain students. While these TCUP-funded
activities have had a significant impact on college STEM programs and
on the students who have enrolled in them, this initiative is still too
modest in scope to ensure that these activities can be sustained by all
TCUP-eligible institutions for a period necessary to realize
significant outcomes in terms of student success in STEM, particularly
at the baccalaureate and graduate education levels. Additional funding
is necessary to ensure that all TCUP-eligible institutions are able to
receive sustained funding necessary to continually develop and improve
their STEM program offerings in response to changing local and regional
STEM workforce demands and research opportunities.
In addition to the TCUP program, a number of other programs for
which Tribal Colleges and Universities compete within the Education and
Human Resources Directorate have experienced reductions. Overall, there
has been a 19 percent cut in inflation adjusted dollars for NSF's
Education and Human Resources budget since 2004. This is particularly
difficult to understand given the severe challenges facing the nation
in preparing the nation's science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics workforce documented in the above-referenced report
``Rising above the Gathering Storm''. The TCUP program should be
expanded by at least $5 million annually for a total of $15 million to
allow TCUP-eligible institutions to fully implement STEM education and
research improvement plans that are responsive to local and national
STEM workforce development needs, particularly given the shortfall in
funding for other Education and Human Resources programs.
Further, based on a motion of the AIHEC Board of Directors, which
is comprised solely of TCU presidents, we recommend that a policy be
put in place that stating that any grants or contracts for technical
assistance under any NSF-TCU program shall be awarded to an Indian
organization which: (a) the NSF Director finds is nationally based, (b)
represents a substantial American Indian constituency, and (c) has
expertise in the field of Tribal Colleges and Universities and American
Indian higher education. This will help ensure that the unique needs of
the TCUs, their students and faculties are addressed effectively and
efficiently in a productive and responsive manner.
Finally, given the limited pool of applicants and the tremendous
need to sustain STEM programs for a length of time deemed sufficient to
achieve improvement at all levels, we urge the subcommittee to direct
NSF to:
--Award grants under the NSF-TCU program for a period of five years,
with ongoing support for an additional five years (without the
need to re-enter a program competition), provided the programs
meet appropriate NSF criteria for satisfactory progress; and
--Refrain from expanding funding priorities under the NSF-TCU program
into new areas (e.g. K-12 teacher education, which previously
had been supported by NSF under the Urban and Rural Systemic
Initiatives) until sufficient funding exists to meet the basic
STEM needs of TCUs and reliable data demonstrates a significant
improvement in basic STEM education participation and
completion rates across TCUs.
We recognize that a tremendous need exists to address STEM
education at all levels. However, funding is severely limited under the
NSF-TCU program and it has not grown in seven years. Therefore, should
NSF personnel believe additional areas should be addressed or
additional programs established, beyond those proposed by TCUs under
the general NSF-TCU program, then new funding should be requested or
designated, rather than taking funds appropriated for desperately
needed basic STEM/Technology education and research programs. This is
particularly important when the new funding priorities imposed on
grantees under programs such as NSF-TCUP are simply replacing programs
that have been eliminated elsewhere within NSF.
TCU STEM Blue Ribbon Panel
An independent Blue Ribbon Panel on TCU STEM would be empowered to
examine, evaluate, and make recommendations regarding the design and
delivery of STEM programs at the Tribal Colleges and Universities, as
well as research and education funding programs operated by the federal
agencies. Recommendations provided by such a Panel would provide
significant impetus in moving Tribal Colleges and University programs
toward greater effectiveness while ensuring greater accountability. The
National Academies are the primary source of expert guidance in
science, engineering, and medicine to academia, industry, the U.S.
Government, and the general public and as such is the appropriate
organization to convene and conduct activities within the intended
scope of this request.
conclusion
In light of the justifications presented in this statement, we
respectfully request that Congress appropriate funding for NASA and NSF
programs that directly impact the STEM programs at Tribal College and
Universities at the levels recommended. This relatively small
investment will go a long way toward helping to build the nation's STEM
workforce while fostering economic self-sufficiency in Indian Country.
Fulfillment of AIHEC's fiscal year 2008 recommendations will strengthen
the missions of all of the TCUs and significantly enhance the strong
positive impact that they have on their respective communities. We
respectfully request your continued support of TCUs and full
consideration of our fiscal year 2008 appropriations recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2008 funding request of $150,000
from the Department of Commerce/NOAA account for CCOS. These funds are
necessary for the State of California to address the very significant
challenges it faces to comply with new national ambient air quality
standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. The study design
incorporates technical recommendations from the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) on how to most effectively comply with federal Clean Air
Act requirements.
First, we want to thank you for your past assistance in obtaining
federal funding for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) and
California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
(CRPAQS). Your support of these studies has been instrumental in
improving the scientific understanding of the nature and cause of ozone
and particulate matter air pollution in Central California and the
nation. Information gained from these two studies is forming the basis
for the 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are due in 2007 (ozone) and 2008
(particulate matter/haze). As with California's previous and current
SIPs, all future SIPs will continue to be updated and refined due to
the scientific complexity of our air pollution problem. Our request
this year would fund the completion of CCOS to address important
questions that won't be answered with results from previously funded
research projects.
To date, our understanding of air pollution and the technical basis
for SIPs has largely been founded on pollutant-specific studies, like
CCOS. These studies are conducted over a single season or single year
and have relied on modeling and analysis of selected days with high
concentrations. SIPs are now more complex than they were in the past.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) now recommends a weight-of-
evidence approach that will involve utilizing more broad-based,
integrated methods, such as data analysis in combination with seasonal
and annual photochemical modeling, to assess compliance with federal
Clean Air Act requirements. This will involve the analysis of a larger
number of days and possibly an entire season. In addition, because
ozone and particulate matter are formed from some of the same emissions
precursors, there is a need to address both pollutants in combination,
which CCOS will do.
Consistent with the NAS recommendations, the CCOS study includes
corroborative analyses with the extensive data provided by past
studies, advances the state-of-science in air quality modeling, and
addresses the integration of ozone and particulate pollution studies.
In addition, the study will incorporate further refinements to emission
inventories, address the development of observation-based analyses with
sound theoretical bases, and includes the following four general
components:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performing SIP modeling analyses........................... 2005-2011
Conducting weight-of-evidence data analyses................ 2006-2008
Making emission inventory improvements..................... 2006-2010
Performing seasonal and annual modeling.................... 2008-2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study, are landmark
examples of collaborative environmental management. The proven methods
and established teamwork provide a solid foundation for CCOS.
For fiscal year 2008, our Coalition is seeking funding of $150,000
from the Department of Commerce/NOAA account in support of CCOS.
California has a very complex terrain that includes mountain ranges,
flat valleys, and long coastal regions. Some meteorological models are
known to have difficulty in simulating high-resolution airflow over
such complex terrain. NOAA has a vast amount of experience in applying
meteorological models in several different areas of the country and
their scientific know-how is a valuable asset to CCOS. This request
will be used to continue NOAA's involvement in developing
meteorological simulations for Central California, specifically longer-
term simulations of seasonal and annual meteorology. The long-term
record of meteorological data in the CCOS database can be used to
improve NOAA's meteorological forecasting abilities and in the
evaluation of U.S. western boundary conditions for weather forecasting
models.
As you know, NOAA is at the scientific forefront of the development
of meteorological models including the Weather Research and Forecasting
(WRF) model that is viewed as a replacement for the Mesoscale
Meteorology Model, Version 5 (MM5). Thus, NOAA's involvement would
facilitate the use of CCOS measurements in the development and
refinement of WRF. In addition, NOAA has conducted prior research in
the CCOS region on atmospheric airflows, sea breeze circulation
patterns, nocturnal jets and eddies, airflow bifurcation, convergence
and divergence zones, up-slope and down-slope flows, and up-valley and
down-valley airflow. Thus, CCOS provides the opportunity to draw from
or extend this research for a longer, multi-year time period. This
research provides fundamental data needed to understand airflow over
complex terrain, and has national applicability.
If we receive the funds requested this year to complete this
research project, this will be our final request.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
cooperative partnership
Private Sector
Western States Petroleum Association; Pacific Gas and Electric
Company; Electric Power Research Institute; NISEI Farmers League and
Agriculture; Independent Oil Producers' Agency; and California Cotton
Ginners and Growers Associations.
Local Government
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (on
behalf of local cities and counties); Bay Area Air Quality Management
District; Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District; San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District; Mendocino County Air
Pollution Control District; and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District.
State Government
California Air Resources Board; and California Energy Commission.
Federal Government
Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Agriculture;
Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Department of Transportation; Department of Interior;
and Department of Energy.
______
Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute
On behalf of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), I
thank the members of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit
written testimony on fiscal year 2008 appropriations for NOAA. MCBI is
a national, nonprofit environmental organization interested in
advancing the science of marine conservation biology and securing
protection for ocean ecosystems. Our headquarters are in Bellevue,
Washington and we also have offices in California and Washington, DC.
MCBI is a member of the Friends of NOAA Coalition and supports the
Coalition's recommendation for funding NOAA at $4.5 billion in fiscal
year 2008, the same amount recommended by the Senate for fiscal year
2006 and 2007, and the same amount currently being recommended by the
House Oceans Caucus. In addition, we support funding augmentation for
several important conservation programs and activities as follows: $3.2
million for the Marine Protected Areas Initiative; $14.5 million for
the National Undersea Research Program; $78 million for the National
Marine Sanctuaries Program; and $7.7 million for conservation of the
Hawaiian monk seal. Our justifications for these requests are as
follows:
National Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center) is responsible
for the implementation of Executive Order 13158, ``Marine Protected
Areas'' (MPAs), which President Clinton issued in May 2000. The
objective of the executive order is to protect ``significant natural
and cultural resources within the marine environment for present and
future generations by strengthening and expanding the Nation's system
of marine protected areas.'' (Exec. Order No. 13158, 65 Fed. Reg.
34,909 (2000)). Federal agencies are directed to use their existing
legal authorities to develop an effective national system of marine
protected areas, including expansion of existing protected areas and
the creation of new ones. The MPA Center is housed within NOAA's
National Ocean Service (Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management).
MPAs are designated to protect marine ecosystems, processes,
habitats, and species, and contribute to the restoration and
replenishment of resources for social, economic, and cultural
enrichment. The MPA Center's specific goals include designing a
framework for a national system of MPAs, developing innovative
approaches to understanding the ecosystem effects and human dimensions
of MPA design and management, facilitating coordination among MPA
agencies and stakeholders, and conducting outreach and education about
place-based ocean management. Cuts in funding have greatly impacted the
MPA Center's activities. The Center has lost 75 percent of its staff
since 2005. This has severely impacted the Center's ability to
implement the President's executive order, and to facilitate national,
state and local MPA coordination.
MCBI recommends $3.2 million for the MPA Center in fiscal year
2008, enabling it to get back on track with its goals and work plans.
In addition to allowing the Center to continue the work below, this
funding would also allow the Center to rehire the seven staff that were
lost under previous budgets. Funding at this level would enable the
Center to:
--Complete its Draft Framework for a national system of MPAs. Funding
at the fiscal year 2006 level could delay this project another
1-2 years.
--Allow for more stakeholder and advisory committee participation.
Funding at the fiscal year 2006 level will only allow minimal
external consultation with stakeholders.
--Continue and accelerate the West Coast Pilot Project. Funding at
fiscal year 2006 levels would delay critical components of this
important project another 3-4 years, and significantly limit
its ultimate utility to the region as a model for the rest of
the national system of MPAs. Completion of the Pilot Project
would be extremely helpful to the Governors of California,
Oregon, and Washington, who jointly seek to create an ocean and
coastal resource action plan for the Pacific Coast.
National Undersea Research Program (NURP) is a key vehicle in
implementing many of the priority topics identified by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy's Ocean Research Priority Plan. These topics
include ``Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources,'' ``Improving
Ecosystem Health,'' the ``Ocean's Role in Climate,'' and ``Increasing
Resilience to Natural Hazards.'' Through its regional science centers,
NURP provides scientists with the advanced underwater technologies
needed to conduct important research, such as remotely operated and
autonomous underwater vehicles, human occupied submersibles, advanced
technical diving, and underwater laboratories. NURP is the nation's
only federal scientific program that specializes in providing the
undersea technology needed to help us better manage Earth's last
frontier.
NURP-sponsored research has contributed to improving methods for
assessing fish populations, locating and mapping areas of deep sea
corals, and assessing the impacts of overfishing, climate change, and
water pollution. Additionally, NURP activities will be an integral part
of the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program at NOAA, newly
authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act in 2006.
In fiscal year 2008 NURP and NOAA's Ocean Exploration (OE) Program
will be merged into a new Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
(OER). The office will support exploration, research, and advanced
technology development efforts.
Cuts in funding have greatly impacted NURP's activities. In fiscal
year 2006, funding was cut by more than 60 percent of fiscal year 2005
levels to $4.1 million. This reduced level of funding has continued in
fiscal year 2007. MCBI recommends $14.5 million for NURP in fiscal year
2008. This amount would enable NURP to:
--Complete the second year of an east coast MPA site identification
project, organized by the NURP University of Connecticut
Center. This project, at the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, aims to identify the full range of ecosystems and
habitats that should be protected in an MPA network.
--Map deep sea coral habitat in the Gulf of Maine, providing valuable
information to marine resource managers. Funding at fiscal year
2006 levels would not support this project.
--Continue a Lake Superior project examining the impacts of PCBs on
fish and human health.
--Map and characterize the new deep sea coral Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPCs) and shelf edge MPAs off the
southeast U.S. coast.
--Obtain vital climate records from west coast deep-water corals.
This project was approved for funding in fiscal year 2006 and
fiscal year 2007 but was deferred in both cases due to budget
cuts, and is at risk of cancellation.
--Undertake an ecosystem connectivity cruise off the west coast and
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This project was originally
planned for fiscal year 2008 but has been delayed because
budget uncertainties.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to designate and manage areas of the marine environment for
resource protection. Currently, the National Marine Sanctuary Program
(NMSP) is responsible for the management and oversight of 13 national
marine sanctuaries comprising over 18,000 square miles, and for the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
The NMSP is responsible for education, research, monitoring and
management programs. In order to successfully carry out its objective,
each sanctuary develops, reviews, and implements a comprehensive
management plan. Each site also carries out local research, monitoring
programs, cultural programs, education and outreach programs,
enforcement, and permitting. The NMSP headquarters offers oversight,
guidance, and support to each sanctuary site. Recent NMSP
accomplishments include the discovery of deep sea corals in the Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary, the documented increase of marine life
in the Florida Keys Tortugas Ecological Reserve (part of the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary), and research that led to the
International Maritime Organization approving a shift in the shipping
lanes in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary region to reduce
whale/ship strikes to protect endangered whales.
For the last few years the NMSP has seen its budget fall from
approximately $68 million (including ORF and PAC accounts) in fiscal
year 2005 to approximately $55 million in fiscal year 2006. As of April
13, 2007, the NMSP has received approximately $35 million of its fiscal
year 2007 budget for ORF; the PAC numbers are still unknown. In fiscal
year 2008, the President requested approximately $50 million for the
NMSP. However, $8 million of the allocation is specifically for the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. As it stands now, the NMSP
operations budget of approximately $36 million has been unchanged for
three consecutive years.
Increased funds are needed to ensure that the NMSP can continue to
meet its growing responsibilities and keep up with inflation.
Furthermore, the NMSP will be unable to meet the management benchmarks
that must be met before the congressional moratorium imposed on new
sanctuary designations can be lifted. MCBI recommends that the NMSP
receive $78 million for fiscal year 2008. This amount would restore the
NMSP's funding to the fiscal year 2005 enacted level of $68 million,
plus another $10 million for construction and facilities. This amount
includes the President's $8 million request for the management of the
Papahanaumokuakea Monument. As it stands now, the NMSP operation budget
has been roughly the same for three consecutive years.
The Hawaiian monk seal is one of the most endangered marine mammals
in the world and is the only marine mammal species whose entire range
lies within the U.S. jurisdiction. Most Hawaiian monk seals reside in
the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). Over the last 50 years, the Hawaiian monk seal
population has declined by more than 60 percent to an estimated 1,252
individuals, its lowest level in recorded history. A number of human
and environmental factors have contributed to this decline, including
overfishing; environmental cycles; entanglement in marine debris;
predation by sharks; injuries and deaths caused by aggressive adult
male monk seals; habitat modification and loss; and disturbance by
humans.
The Hawaiian monk seal is currently spiraling into extinction. What
happens next will be crucial to the monk seal's recovery prospects. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its partner agencies must
aggressively budget for and carry out key recommendations of the draft
recovery plan, which include the following:
--Implement a suite of actions to improve female survival in the 6
main subpopulations, including: conservation of habitats and
prey base; research on juvenile survival factors; interventions
to protect juveniles, especially females, until they are strong
enough to care for themselves; and protection of females from
male seal aggression and shark predation.
--Continued removal of hazardous debris from monk seal habitat.
--Maintain and expand field efforts to carry out research and
management actions in the NWHI.
--Develop and implement a coordinated plan with the state, local, and
non-governmental organizations to encourage growth of the monk
seal population in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and prevent
harmful human interactions with the seals that reside there;
and consider a best-site relocation program for seals in the
MHI to optimize their survival prospects.
--Determine and take reasonable steps to reduce the probability of
exposure of monk seals to new diseases (e.g. distemper).
Historically, Hawaiian monk seal recovery efforts have been funded
primarily by NMFS and have focused heavily on scientific research. Much
more attention now needs to be paid to hands-on interventions to save
the seals from dying. For fiscal year 2008, MCBI recommends $7.7
million for monk seal conservation under the following programs:
--$3 million allocated to the monk seal in the Marine Mammal and Sea
Turtle ESA base, under the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources.
These funds would support direct intervention and research
activities.
--$500,000 as part of the Marine Mammal Initiative (Cetaceans and
Monk Seals), under NMFS, Office of Protected Resources. These
funds support the annual summer field camp and monk seal
population assessment through the Marine Mammal Initiative.
NOAA staff and volunteers must be supported on the six main
seal islands over a five-month period to observe seals, collect
data, and undertake urgent conservation activities.
--$3 million is needed for marine debris removal through the Coral
Reef Conservation Program line item and the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program under the National Ocean Service. These
funds would ensure debris removal from all islands in the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and protect seals,
birds, and sea turtles from entanglement death.
--$1.2 million is needed in for the Hawaiian Monk Seal Program line
item. These funds support salaries, benefits, and travel costs
for NMFS seal program staff. Additional staff is needed to
carry out the required level of conservation activities.
In summary, MCBI respectfully requests that the subcommittee
augment funding for the ecosystem and species protection programs
mentioned above. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views on
appropriations for NOAA.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to share with the subcommittee our appropriations
priorities for fiscal year 2008. Specifically, our top priority in the
fiscal year 2008 Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriations
bill is the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Plant Genome Research
Initiative (Initiative).
NCGA is a national organization founded in 1957 and represents more
than 32,000 members in 48 states, 47 affiliated state organizations and
more than 300,000 corn farmers who contribute to state checkoff
programs for the purpose of creating new opportunities and markets for
corn growers.
NCGA's top priority in the fiscal year 2008 Science, State, Justice
and Commerce appropriations bill is increased funding to $150 million
for the National Science Foundation (NSF) Plant Genome Research
Initiative (initiative). The initiative is supported by the Interagency
Working Group on Plant Genomes under the auspices of the National
Science and Technology Council within the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
In 1997, NCGA spearheaded the effort on legislation that authorized
major plant genome research, which resulted in the Plant Genome
Research Initiative. Obtaining genome sequence information frequently
leads to breakthroughs in the study of a particular organism. The goal
of the initiative is to understand the structure and function of all
plant genes at all levels from molecules to organisms and to ecosystems
and indeed, the initiative has led to an unprecedented increase in our
understanding of the genomics and genetics of plants. The initiative
also changed the way research is conducted in plant biology and helped
to attract a new generation of scientists to the plant sciences field
at U.S. colleges and universities.
Bringing agriculturally important plant species into the genomic
age is an important goal. Initial major accomplishments included the
completion of the model laboratory plant Arabidopsis and rice genome
sequences. Completion on those genomes demonstrated that genomic
sequence was the most comprehensive way toward gene discovery--a first
step toward identifying the role of each gene. Building upon lessons
learned sequencing smaller plant genomes, sequencing the corn genome
became feasible. Arabidopsis, a member of the brassicaceae, or mustard,
family, has a genome of 125 million base pairs. Rice's genome, has 430
million base pairs. Sequencing the corn genome had been considered
difficult because of its large size and complex genetic arrangement.
The genome has 50,000 genes scattered among the haploid genome size of
2.3 billion nucleotides--molecules that form DNA--that make up its 10
chromosomes.
In 2004, valuable corn research was made available through NCGA to
research scientists working to understand the maize genome through the
availability of sequencing data from Ceres, DuPont and Monsanto. This
information, combined with the corn sequence data already in the public
domain, significantly accelerated the identification of genes within
the entire corn genome and was a precursor to the effect that the full
corn sequence will have on the research community.
In 2005, NSF, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the Department of Energy (DOE) awarded $32 million to sequence the
corn genome. NSF selected a consortium of four research institutions to
sequence the maize genome: The University of Arizona, Washington
University in St. Louis, Iowa State University in Ames and Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The goal of the
Maize Genome Sequencing Project is to unravel the complete DNA sequence
of the maize plant and to determine the number of genes and their
position on the chromosomes--the tiny bundles of DNA that form the
storage units of genetic information. Corn is pushing the state of the
art of genetic research to new levels as its genome has complexities
beyond any plant sequenced to date. The highly repetitive regions of
DNA, formerly considered ``junk'' DNA, are extremely prevalent in corn,
and have been shown to have a significant impact on how the genetic
engine of life truly works. These issues have posed significant
challenges to researchers interested in crop improvement, plant
molecular biology, or genome evolution. Using a physical map that
covers about 95 percent of the maize genome map, scientists generate a
draft sequence to reveal the locations of regulatory elements within
stretches of so-called non-coding ``junk'' DNA. Focus of the project
does center on gene-containing regions and are sequenced in detail.
This sequencing strategy enables the consortium to sequence the corn
genome at a fraction of the cost that was necessary to decipher the
human genome, which is only slightly larger than the corn genome.
Today, genomic research technology and techniques are ready to
complete a high quality corn genome sequence. The result will be the
complete sequence and structural understanding of the entire corn
genome, annotated functional sequences, and their locations on corn's
genetic and physical map. This genome will be the most complex
eukaryotic genome to be sequenced to date, including the human genome.
The corn genome sequence will, in turn, help in the eventual completion
of other major crop genome sequences, as itself benefited from
knowledge gained through the prior completion of other genome
sequences. It will also hold clues to improve the growth and
development of other related grass crops, such as wheat, sorghum,
millet and barley. Importantly, access to all of this information is
shared through GenBank, a public repository for genome-sequence data.
With increased funding, we will be much closer to achieving the
goal of this initiative--understanding the structure and function of
all plant genes. The corn industry, including the academic research
community, grain handlers, growers, and seed companies support the corn
genome sequencing project. A complete corn genome sequence and the
application of its information will provide a wide range of benefits.
Industry, both public and private, will be able to expedite their
breeding programs and increase their knowledge of corn's important
agronomic traits. Corn growers will be able to plant varieties of corn
that are better suited to market and environmental needs, such as pest
resistant traits. Quality researchers will continue to be attracted to
the field of plant genomics and genetics.
Consumers will also benefit from more abundant and sustainable
food, feed and fuel supplies. Corn is not only grown for food and feed,
it is converted to a myriad of processed food products--literally
thousands of products in the typical supermarket contain corn.
Improvements aim at increasing yield and nutritional value and
optimizing the properties crucial for grain products such as flour and
pasta. The production of corn-based products with enhanced nutritional
value that are safer and less allergenic will directly benefit
consumers.
Corn is also an important material for many industrial purposes and
products including rubber, plastics, fuel and clothing. Corn is a model
system for studying complex genomic structure, organization and
function, and its high quality genetic map will serve as the foundation
for studies that may lead to improved biomass and bioenergy resources
from corn and related plant species.
The request for the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) is
$633 million, and increase of $25.15 million, or 4.1 percent, over the
fiscal year 2007 request of $607.85 million. The Directorate for
Biological Sciences supports research, infrastructure, and education in
the biological sciences at U.S. colleges, universities, non-profit
research institutions, and other research and education organizations.
BIO includes a subactivity request for Plant Genome Research (PGR)
of $101.22 million, an amount that does not contemplate an increase
from the fiscal year 2007 request and is a slight decrease from fiscal
year 2006 actual spending. PGR subactivity was initiated in fiscal year
1998, as part of the initiative. In general, 36 percent of the PGR
portfolio is available for new research grants. The remaining 64
percent is used primarily to fund continuing grants made in previous
years, which includes corn genome sequencing. PGR supports corn genome
sequencing jointly with USDA and DOE. The Administration's proposal
would contribute the third and last increment in support of the
interagency corn sequencing project that began in fiscal year 2005.
PGR also supports the Arabidopsis 2010 project. This project in
fiscal year 2007 and 2008 could receive up to $25 million per year. It
is important to note that model systems research such as this project,
has been traditionally supported through NSF's core budget and not PGR.
This change may result in a reduction of resources available for
economically significant plants, such as continued work on new projects
involving the rice genome and future new project stemming from corn
genome work, during flat budget cycles. The Arabidopsis 2010 project
and the NSF's PGRP complement each other and provide a broad base of
support for the plant biology research community. It is critical that
both activities receive enough support to achieve their goals.
Maintaining and improving upon the resources available for crop
systems is now more important than ever, as agriculture tries to meet
the demands of consumers worldwide by providing a safe and secure
supply of resources for human and animal nutrition, fiber, bioenergy,
and industrial feeds. Continued strong governmental support of basic
agricultural research is essential to ensure that the innovation
pipeline remains robust. NCGA requests that this subcommittee include
in the fiscal year 2008 Science, State, Justice and Commerce
appropriations bill an increase in funding to $150 million for the
National Science Foundation Plant Genome Research Initiative.
Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to corn
growers over the years. Please feel free to contact Lisa Kelley at 202-
628-7001 if you need any additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
Agency Involved: Department of Justice
Program Involved: COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP)
Summary of GLIFWC's Fiscal Year 2008 Testimony
GLIFWC requests that Congress: (1) continue funding the DOJ COPS
Tribal Resources Grant Program at $31,065,000 in fiscal year 2008 (i.e.
the same level as requested by the Administration in fiscal year 2007
and appropriated by both the House and Senate), and (2) specifically
authorize eligibility for tribes' special law enforcement agencies,
including fish and wildlife departments and game wardens, to
participate in the COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unlike previous years and without notice or explanation, the
Fiscal Year 2006 Application Guide for the TRGP provides: Special law
enforcement agencies such as fish and wildlife departments, game
wardens, park and recreation departments, and environmental protection
agencies are not eligible to apply under this program at this time. The
status of GLIFWC's fiscal year 2007 TRGP eligibility is unknown at this
time.
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 23 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 reservation communities of the following member tribes: In
Wisconsin--Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Red Cliff,
Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake) and St. Croix; in Minnesota--Mille Lacs;
and in Michigan--Bay Mills, Keweenaw Bay and Lac Vieux Desert.
Interaction With Law Enforcement Agencies
GLIFWC's officers are integral members of regional emergency
services networks in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. They not only
enforce the tribes' conservation codes, but are fully certified
officers who work cooperatively with surrounding authorities when they
detect violations of state or federal criminal and conservation laws.
These partnerships evolved from the inter-governmental cooperation
required to combat the violence experienced during the early
implementation of treaty rights in Wisconsin. As time passed, GLIFWC's
professional officers continued to provide a bridge between local law
enforcement and many rural Indian communities. GLIFWC remains at this
forefront, using DOJ funding to develop inter-jurisdictional legal
training attended by GLIFWC officers, tribal police and conservation
officers, tribal judges, tribal and county prosecutors, and state and
federal agency law enforcement staff. DOJ funding has also enabled
GLIFWC to certify its officers as medical emergency first responders
trained in the use of defibrillators, and to train them in search and
rescue, particularly in cold water rescue techniques. When a crime is
in progress or emergencies occur, local, state, and federal law
enforcement agencies look to GLIFWC's officers as part of the mutual
assistance networks of the ceded territories. These networks include
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Coast
Guard, USDA-Forest Service, State Patrol and Police, county sheriffs
departments, municipal police forces, fire departments and emergency
medical services.
GLIFWC Programs Funded by DOJ
GLIFWC recognizes that adequate communications, training, and
equipment are essential both for the safety of its officers and for the
role that GLIFWC's officers play in the proper functioning of
interjurisdictional emergency mutual assistance networks in the ceded
territories. GLIFWC's COPS grants for the past six years have provided
a critical foundation for achieving these goals. Significant
accomplishments with Tribal Resources Grant Program funds include:
Improved Radio Communications and Increased Officer Safety.--GLIFWC
replaced obsolete radio equipment to improve the capacity of officers
to provide emergency services throughout the Chippewa ceded
territories. GLIFWC also used COPS funding to provide each officer a
bullet-proof vest, night vision equipment, and in-car video cameras to
increase officer safety.
Emergency Response Equipment and Training.--Each GLIFWC officer has
completed and maintains certification as a First Responder and in the
use of life saving portable defibrillators. Since 2003, GLIFWC officers
carried First Responder kits and portable defibrillators during their
patrol of 275,257 miles throughout the ceded territories. In remote,
rural areas the ability of GLIFWC officers to respond to emergencies
provides critical support of mutual aid agreements with federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies.
Ice Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer maintains
certification in ice rescue techniques and was provided a Coast Guard
approved ice rescue suit. In addition, each of patrol areas was
provided a snowmobile and an ice rescue sled to participate in
interagency ice rescue operations with county sheriffs departments and
local fire departments.
Wilderness Search and Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer
completed Wilderness Search and Rescue training. The COPS Tribal
Resources Grant Program also enabled GLIFWC to replace a number of
vehicles that were purchased over a decade ago, including 10 ATV's and
16 patrol boats and the GPS navigation system on its 31 foot Lake
Superior Patrol Boat. These vehicles are used for field patrol,
cooperative law enforcement activities, and emergency response in the
1837 and 1842 ceded territories. GLIFWC officers also utilize these
vehicles for boater, ATV, and snowmobile safety classes taught on
Reservations as part of the Commission's Community Policing Strategy.
Hire, Train and Equip Three Additional Officers.--Funding has been
contracted to provide three additional officers to ensure tribes are
able to meet obligations to both enforce off-reservation conservation
codes and effectively participate in the myriad of mutual assistance
networks located throughout a vast region covering 60,000 square miles.
Consistent with numerous other federal court rulings on the
Chippewa treaties, the United States Supreme Court re-affirmed the
existence of the Chippewa's treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights in
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, 526 U.S. 172 (1999). As tribes have re-
affirmed rights to harvest resources in the 1837 ceded territory of
Minnesota, workloads have increased. But for GLIFWC's COPS grants, this
expanded workload, combined with staff shortages would have limited
GLIFWC's effective participation in regional emergency services
networks in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. The effectiveness of
these mutual assistance networks is more critical than ever given: (1)
national homeland security concerns, (2) state and local governmental
fiscal shortfalls, (3) staffing shortages experienced by local police,
fire, and ambulance departments due to the call up of National Guard
and military reserve units, and (4) the need to cooperatively combat
the spread of methamphetamine production in rural areas patrolled by
GLIFWC conservation officers.
Examples of the types of assistance provided by GLIFWC officers are
provided below:
--as trained first responders, GLIFWC officers routinely respond to,
and often are the first to arrive at, snowmobile accidents,
heart attacks, hunting accidents, and automobile accidents
(throughout the ceded territories) and provide sheriffs
departments valuable assistance with natural disasters (e.g.
floods in Ashland County and a tornado in Siren, Wisconsin).
--search and rescue for lost hunters, fishermen, hikers, children,
and the elderly (Sawyer, Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, and Forest
Counties in Wisconsin and Baraga, Chippewa, and Gogebic
Counties in Michigan).
--being among the first to arrive on the scene where officers from
other agencies have been shot (Bayfield, Burnett, and Polk
Counties in Wisconsin) and responding to weapons incidents
(Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Sawyer, and Vilas Counties in
Wisconsin).
--use of a thermal imaging camera (purchased through the COPS
program) to track an individual fleeing the scene of an
accident (Sawyer County, Wisconsin).
--organize and participate in search and rescues of ice fishermen on
Lake Superior (Ashland and Bayfield Counties in Wisconsin),
Lake Superior boats (Baraga County in Michigan and with the
U.S. Coast Guard in other parts of western Lake Superior), and
kayakers (Bayfield County in Wisconsin).
GLIFWC is proposing to utilize DOJ TRGP funding for training and
equipment to: (1) recognize, secure and respond appropriately to
potential methamphetamine production sites, (2) identify addicts while
on patrol, and (3) improve community awareness through hunter safety
classes. Simply put, supporting GLIFWC's officers will not only assist
GLIFWC in meeting its obligations to enforce tribal off-reservation
codes, but it will enhance intergovernmental efforts to protect public
safety and welfare throughout the region in the states of Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Michigan. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program
provides essential funding for equipment and training to support
GLIFWC's cooperative conservation, law enforcement, and emergency
response activities. We ask Congress to support increased funding for
this program.
[From Outdoor Life Magazine, December 2006]
Meth Wars in Deer Country
As its cost in dollars and lives mounts, the fight against
methamphetamine now involves sportsmen to a degree no one predicted a
handful of years ago. Across the rural countryside, meth labs have
invaded the lands where we fish and hunt.
One December evening in 2004, Wildlife Officer Amy Snyder heard
shots after legal shooting hours in a popular duck-hunting area in
Madison County, Tenn. She put on hip boots and set out into the marsh.
But when she arrived at the blind where she thought the shooting had
occurred, she found it unoccupied.
Then Officer Snyder noticed a chemical odor in the air. She shined
her light around and in the grass saw a large glass mason jar filled
with what looked like corn hominy. She kicked over the jar, saw rubber
hoses coming out of the top and panicked.
``It was a meth lab, actively cooking,'' Snyder recalls. ``What I'd
done was extremely dangerous. The stuff could have exploded, not to
mention what might have happened if I'd surprised the cookers at
work.''
Snyder had reason to be unnerved. The February before in Greene
County, Ind., Conservation Officer Mike Gregg got a report of
suspicious activity deep inside the Hillenbrand Fish and Wildlife Area.
Gregg went in alone to investigate on a cold winter day and caught the
unmistakable acrid tang of anhydrous ammonia, a liquid fertilizer and
key component in the manufacture of methamphetamine. He got closer and,
to his surprise, noticed a man trying to hide beneath the root ball of
a fallen tree.
``He took off and I chased him through the snow,'' Gregg says.
``When I caught up to him, he pulled a 9 mm pistol on me. I had to
shoot him in the leg to subdue him. He was typical of the methers we
see: paranoid, armed and violent.''
The prior March, Alabama conservation officer Jimmy Hutto learned
just how paranoid, armed and violent meth cookers can be. While
arresting a man for fishing without a license, he found meth and soon
was involved in serving a search warrant on the suspected cooker. But
the man's property was wired to detect intruders. And when Hutto broke
down the door to the lab, the cooker was waiting and shot the
conservation officer in the abdomen. Hutto died two weeks later.
a rural scourge
These incidents are not isolated. Law enforcement and conservation
officials we contacted across the country describe a wave of
methamphetamine manufacturing activity that has crashed across the
rural countryside in the last five years, causing a dramatic change in
the way game wardens operate and in the way hunters, anglers and other
recreationists should conduct themselves afield.
``The landscape is changing,'' says Keith Aller, deputy director of
law enforcement for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. ``Twenty years
ago meth was an outlaw biker thing, an urban thing. But in the past
five years we've seen cookers take their labs to the forests and rural
areas to avoid detection and to dump the toxic by-products of their
work. We've also seen meth addicts exploiting public lands to pay for
their habits. I don't want to sound alarmist, but people need to
understand what we're up against these days and what they might
encounter when they head outdoors.''
meth's history
Methamphetamine was first synthesized in Japan in 1919 and was
widely prescribed to Allied and Axis combatants to keep them awake
during protracted World War II battles. Marketed as Benzedrine in the
1950s, it was the drug of choice for people who wanted to lose weight.
A decade later, outlaw biker gangs in the United States learned the so-
called ``Birch'' or ``Nazi method'' of manufacturing the drugs from
over-the-counter cold medicines, and created the market for speed.
Congress made the drug illegal without a prescription in 1970, but
by the early 1980s new recipes had made meth easier to cook and more
potent, offering the user a 6- to 24-hour high that also damaged the
brain.
This super-meth took off in Hawaii and Southern California first,
manufactured by Mexican drug cartels. But soon the drug was being
manufactured by mom-and-pop cookers, and within 20 years it spread
eastward through the Rocky Mountains, into the Midwest and onto the
East Coast. An urban phenomenon at first, it turned rural as the rank
odors associated with its production caused cookers to set up in less
populated areas to avoid detection. That practice has placed some meth
labs in the same woods and waterways as hunters, anglers and other
outdoorsmen.
Consider that in 2003 the greatest number of reported meth lab
seizures on Department of Interior lands occurred on those managed by
the Fish & Wildlife Service (38 laboratories), followed by the Bureau
of Land Management (31 laboratories), National Park Service (8
laboratories) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (6 laboratories). That same
year, the National Forest Service discovered 56 working labs on its
land.
hunters and meth
But those numbers are believed to be only a fraction of the
activity on federal land, not to mention state and private property.
And anecdotal evidence of meth invading the outdoors is easy to come
by.
In November 2004, for example, deer hunters on state land near
Reelsville, Ind., came upon a duffel bag containing an actively cooking
meth lab. They wisely backed away from the potentially explosive
situation and notified the local police, who quickly dismantled and
removed it.
Twelve months earlier in Ashley County, Ark., deer hunters tipped
sheriff's investigators to the fact that methamphetamine manufacturers
had taken over remote deer blinds and were using them as labs.
Narcotics detectives ended up finding four cooking operations set up in
Ashley County deer blinds. In Wright County, Minn., four years before,
cookers decided to use ice-fishing shanties to manufacture meth on
Waverly Lake. Game wardens notified Sheriff's Sergeant Todd Hoffman of
the activity. When Hoffman arrived to investigate, he noticed a solvent
smell seeping from one of the shacks.
Some of the more dangerous ingredients found in meth labs include
lithium battery acid, charcoal lighter fluid and paint thinner. But the
most common component--other than cold and allergy medicines that
contain the drug pseudoephedrine--is anhydrous ammonia. Cookers
sometimes steal this fertilizer from storage tanks on rural farms,
ranches and supply stores.
Needing more evidence to justify a search, Hoffman sifted through a
nearby trash pile. When he picked up a thermos, anhydrous ammonia gas
erupted from the vessel.
``My face began to burn, and for five or ten seconds I couldn't
breathe,'' Hoffman told the Minneapolis City Pages newspaper. ``I
thought my face was dissolving.''
Hoffman was lucky not to have been seriously injured: When
anhydrous ammonia contacts skin, it forms ammonium hydroxide, a highly
caustic liquid that burns. Exposure to low levels of some meth
ingredients like anhydrous ammonia can cause flu-like symptoms. Higher
levels of exposure can cause lung and eye damage, chemical burns and
even death.
Idaho Fish and Game officer Clint Rand was involved in a meth-
related theft in 2000. Rand pulled over to help a disabled vehicle only
to be shot at four times by the occupants, who had recently stolen
anhydrous ammonia from a fertilizer supply store in Farmington, Wash.,
at gunpoint.
``Rand was very lucky not to have been hit,'' says Idaho Fish and
Game law enforcement bureau chief Jon Heggen. ``But they blew out his
windshield. It affected him and his family greatly. He recently decided
to retire. That said, we're not experiencing the level of activity seen
in other parts of the country. We've found labs in abandoned mines and
dumps in the forest, but it's not widespread. However, it only takes
one to get your attention. Meth goes beyond the bad guys trying to harm
you. The stuff they leave behind in those dumps can kill you.''
toxic waste dumps
Indeed, as any law enforcement or conservation officer familiar
with meth will tell you, one of the truly insidious aspects of the drug
is that the waste associated with its manufacture is as dangerous as
the drug, the labs or the users.
According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, every pound of
meth creates 5 to 7 pounds of toxic waste. Of the 32 chemicals required
to make meth by the Nazi method, for example, a third of them are so
poisonous that cleanup workers have to wear biohazard suits and
respirators.
The chemical residues of meth manufacture can include lye,
phosphorous, hydrochloric acid and iodine. Dump sites can include
contaminated coffee filters stained red from the dye in cold medicines,
mason jars or Pyrex baking dishes, rubber and plastic hosing, plastic
bottles, salt, industrial solvent tanks, discarded methanol or alcohol
bottles, white gas containers and propane tanks with the brass fittings
stained blue or green from contact with anhydrous ammonia.
According to congressional testimony, it can take up to eight hours
and $5,000 to $20,000 to clean up a meth lab. Depending on its size,
the manpower and money required to clean up a meth dump site are less.
But when the lab or the dump is outdoors, there are hidden costs, such
as contamination of groundwater and the potential poisoning of game,
hunting dogs or humans--all things that law enforcement officers who
patrol the great outdoors are forced to keep in mind these days.
law enforcement's new burden
``Before 2000, we'd be hard-pressed to find a meth dump. Now it's
not uncommon to find two or three a week,'' says Patrol Captain Dennis
Whitehead, who oversees law enforcement in Kentucky's Daniel Boone
National Forest. ``Drug crimes have come to the forest in a big way.
We're not just squirrel cops anymore. Sometimes forty percent of our
job is associated with drugs. We've had cookers use campsites. We've
had them drive roads with the stuff cooking in their cars. We've even
had a ring of poachers who were shooting deer and trading the meat for
meth. In the last five years, being a forest ranger has changed one
hundred and eighty degrees, and it's all due to that drug.''
Indiana conservation officer Gregg agrees: ``Meth has changed my
job. It's gotten to the point where as a conservation officer these
days you're better off going into a situation thinking you may be
dealing with meth rather than a game violation.''
The state-by-state statistics back up Gregg's grim assessment. The
Drug Enforcement Administration reports that in 1999 in Indiana, there
were 151 methamphetamine incidents where law enforcement officials,
including conservation officers, had to deal with labs, dump sites or
disposal of cooking chemicals or equipment.
The following year the incidents in Indiana more than doubled to
353. By 2004, the latest year for which numbers are available, the
state reported 1,074 cases in which law enforcement officials had to
confront meth labs or dumps in the course of their work.
The situation was even worse in Missouri, where the number of meth
incidents jumped from 439 in 1999 to 2,885 in 2003 before falling
slightly (to 2,788) in 2004. In those years nearly 70 percent of the
dumps were found in the Mark Twain National Forest, one of the best
places to hunt in the state.
sportsmen warned
Iowa had the second-highest number of meth-lab incidents in 2004.
Like several other states, including Montana, South Dakota and
Tennessee, Iowa has taken to informing hunters and other outdoor
enthusiasts about the threat.
The Iowa Division of Natural Resources, for example, now posts
warnings on its Web site and at its offices around the state, alerting
hunters to the potential hazards they face from meth when afield.
``It's sad to say, but many of our best hunting and fishing areas
are conducive to cooking and dumping meth,'' says Lowell Joslin, chief
of law enforcement for the Iowa DNR. ``We've found as an agency that
one of the best things we can do is put information out to sportsmen.
We want to educate them about meth so they know for their own health
what to do when they encounter a lab or a dump, and also to have them
report what they find to the nearest law enforcement agency.''
Like many rural states these days, Iowa provides its conservation
officers with extensive training in drug enforcement and drug lab/drug
dump recognition and management. The state also includes a
methamphetamine awareness component in its hunter-safety courses.
``In every hunter-ed course I teach, I talk about meth,'' says Iowa
conservation officer Kirby Bragg. ``It's just a smart thing to do. For
a while there out in the field I was running across active labs or the
remnants of labs two to five times a week. The most memorable incident
occurred opening day of deer season in 2003. I spotted a guy in a van
parked with his motor running on a road adjacent to one of our more
popular hunting areas. I didn't know if he was hunting or what. When I
tried to approach him, he took off and we ended up in a high-speed
pursuit. Turns out he had an active lab going in the back of the van.
Moving meth labs are essentially moving bombs. We never had to deal
with that kind of thing ten years ago.''
Nor did outdoor law enforcement officials have to deal with the
kind of random paranoid violence that BLM ranger Steven Martin faced in
California in 2003.
``He was driving on a remote section of BLM land and happened on
two guys sitting in a car,'' says BLM deputy director Aller. ``When he
approached, they immediately opened fire and then took off into the
hills. These were young kids, eighteen to twenty, with no history of
violence. But meth was found in the car and when they were finally
apprehended, they told investigators they felt their best option was to
kill the ranger when he stopped them. That's extreme, but that's what
meth does to people.''
Another incident Aller cites shows how far meth addicts are willing
to go to support a habit, and how that can lead to the destruction of
property and murder.
``The BLM administers two hundred and sixty million acres out west,
and that land includes all sorts of recreational, archeological and
paleontological resources that can be and have been stolen by addicts
and sold to buy more meth,'' Aller says. ``In early 2005, for example,
one of our special agents in Oregon got word that a group of meth
addicts were dismantling a BLM bridge and selling it as scrap aluminum.
It sounds screwy, but that's what they were doing. Anyway, our bridge
was disappearing, so the agent began to investigate, and he identified
the people he thought were responsible and started doing interviews. It
turns out that the suspects believed one of their own was cooperating,
so they killed him. Because of a bridge. Again, extreme, but that's
what meth does.''
fighting back
Thankfully, there is some good news on the prevention front: In the
past year, many of the rural states hit hardest by the drug have passed
strong laws limiting access to over-the-counter cold and allergy
medicines that contain pseudoephedrine. Many are based on a law first
passed in Oklahoma that resulted in an 80 percent reduction in meth lab
seizures in that state since April 2004.
The laws require products containing pseudoephedrine to be sold
behind the pharmacy counter. They also limit the purchase of
pseudoephedrine products to 250 thirty-milligram pills a month and
require buyers to present I.D. and sign for the medicine at the time of
sale.
Iowa, one of the hardest-hit states, has gone several steps
further, requiring a prescription for pseudoephedrine medicines. And
some Iowa counties have started distributing locks that prevent
anhydrous ammonia from being stolen from retailers.
``It's helped,'' says Iowa conservation officer Kirby Bragg. ``I
haven't run across as many labs or dumps this year as I did just two
years ago.''
Indiana conservation officer Mike Gregg has seen a similar drop but
cautions all outdoor enthusiasts to be careful in the woods and on
lakes.
``It has slowed a little,'' Gregg says. ``The new laws are good and
so are ideas like locking up anhydrous tanks. But meth cookers are
clever. We've already seen them shifting from using anhydrous ammonia
to using red phosphorous in their labs. We're also hearing about them
experimenting with cold alcohol as a component. When it comes right
down to it, meth is highly addictive and highly lucrative, and it isn't
going away anytime soon. People who live or recreate in rural areas
need to be aware of its dangers.''
what to do if you encounter a meth lab
Okay, so you come across what looks like a high school chemistry
experiment that stinks or a pile of trash dumped somewhere in your
hunting woods or streamside of your favorite trout river. What do you
do?
First, err on the side of caution. Meth labs and meth dumps are
dangerous places. If actively cooking, meth labs are highly volatile
and can explode. And meth dumps are filled with toxins. So get back. If
you're hunting with dogs, get your dogs back, too. If you've got a
binocular, use it to confirm what you're looking at.
With an active lab or a dump, you'll see a combination of these
items: glass jars, rubber tubing, thermometers, aluminum foil,
blenders, cheesecloth, coffee filters, funnels, gas cans, hot plates,
paper towels, propane, Pyrex dishes, rubber gloves, strainers, duct
tape and clamps.
The chemicals involved are harder to identify unless they're
labeled. But expect that any lab or dump might contain the following:
acetone; isopropyl or rubbing alcohol; cold pills containing ephedrine
or pseudoephedrine; drain cleaner (sulfuric acid); engine starter
(ether); iodine; HEET gasoline additive; lithium batteries; matches for
red phosphorous; muriatic acid, anhydrous ammonia; Red Devil lye; salt;
or trichloroethane, which ironically is a common gun-cleaning solvent.
If, based on what you can see from a distance, you believe you've
stumbled onto a lab or a dump, back completely out of the area and
contact the closest law enforcement department, including rangers and
conservation officers. They'll get hazardous-materials experts to
dismantle and clean up the mess.
``We don't want hunters or anglers to get hurt, but if they locate
some of the meth activities and report them, it's a big help to us,''
says Lowell Joselin, chief of law enforcement for the Iowa Division of
Natural Resources.
______
Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land, Land Trust Alliance,
The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, The Ocean Conservancy,
Association of National Estuary Programs, and Restore America's
Estuaries
On behalf of The Trust for Public Land, Land Trust Alliance, The
Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, The Ocean Conservancy,
Association of National Estuary Programs, and Restore America's
Estuaries, we would like to thank you for your strong support of our
nation's Coastal Zone Management Program, and coastal land
conservation. We are writing today in support of the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP).
Created by Congress in 2002, CELCP protects ``those coastal and
estuarine areas with significant conservation, recreation, ecological,
historical or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion
from their natural or recreational states to other uses.'' Thus far,
this program has invested over $177 million towards 119 conservation
projects in 25 of the nation's 35 coastal states, and has helped
preserve some of America's greatest coastal treasures. All federal
funding has been leveraged by at least an equal amount of state, local
and private funds. NOAA has a proud 200-year tradition of sound
management of our nation's coastal resources, and the CELCP program
further builds upon that achievement. We hope to continue this federal-
state partnership and encourage you to fund CELCP at $80 million for
fiscal year 2008.
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. Across the nation, beaches and waterfronts have always been
the destination of choice for Americans. Billions of dollars of the
country'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 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.
Increased funding for CELCP will complete a substantial number of
important coastal conservation projects around the country, many of
which still hang in the balance from the yet-undecided fiscal year 2007
allocation. While we are optimistic at the first-time inclusion of
CELCP in the President's fiscal year 2008 proposed budget, the proposed
funding level is vastly lower than what is needed on the ground and
well below what your subcommittee has historically proposed. While this
signal of the Administration's growing support for the program is an
important and welcome milestone in the evolution of the federal-state
CELCP partnership, the strong support of Congress is paramount. Again,
we urge you to sustain that partnership this year by using your
discretion to fund CELCP at $80 million in fiscal year 2008. We look
forward to working with you as this process moves forward.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,
Nisqually Tribe of Washington, Puyallup Tribe of Washington, and
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby and members of the
Subcommittee, we respectfully submit the following written testimony
regarding funding for tribal law enforcement and justice programs
within the Department of Justice budget. In fiscal year 2008, as in
past years, the President has proposed significant cuts to several
grant programs that provide critical funding to tribal law enforcement
agencies and justice systems. If enacted, these cuts will cripple
tribal justice systems. We respectfully request that you reject these
proposed cuts. We would also like to endorse the recommendations made
by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in its ``views and
estimates'' letter.
introduction
The need for law enforcement resources across Indian country is
severe. Today, there are 1.3 law enforcement officers per 1,000
citizens in Indian county, compared to 2.9 law enforcement officers per
1,000 citizens in non-Indian communities. It is estimated that more
than 2,000 additional officers are required across Indian country just
to meet minimum safety standards. Police officers working on
reservations frequently have to patrol alone because of personnel
shortages. Understandably, newly-trained and veteran officers often
leave to take jobs that require less of a risk to their personal
safety, exacerbating officer shortages. Equipment needs are also great.
Tribal law enforcement agencies need stable funding to address these
core shortages. This need has become even more severe in recent years
because of increased methamphetamine use, production and trafficking on
reservations. It is a vicious cycle--lack of funding for even the most
basic elements of a law enforcement program is part of what contributes
to the perception that reservations are ``lawless.'' This perception is
what makes our communities attractive to drug dealers, which in turn
increases the need for resources.
Of course, effective crime prevention takes more than just police
officers. Tribes also operate court systems, detention facilities, drug
treatment services and other alternatives to detention. Many tribes
have also invested in preventative programs, such as youth centers,
youth activity programs and drug education. As governments, we
recognize our responsibility for fostering positive change and
rehabilitation, even in our jails. More often than not, the inmates are
people from our community who will be returning to the community when
they are released, so we have a particular incentive to help them
pursue positive changes. Without all of these services, though, we are
stuck in a cycle of arresting and locking up our own people.
requests
Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance.--For fiscal year 2008, the Department of Justice has
requested $550 million for state and local law enforcement assistance
within the Office of Justice Programs. Instead of breaking the funding
request down into specific grant programs--as in past years, the
Administration instead requests $312 million for flexible public safety
grants under the Byrne Public Safety and Protection program and $180
million for a violent crime reduction partnership initiative. However,
this reorganization of the OJP budget camouflages an overall decrease
of $900 million for all the programs included in this category. While
such flexible funding initiatives can often be useful to tribes, the
Administration's proposal would (1) significantly reduce the overall
funding amount and (2) eliminate any specific set-aside for tribes. We
are greatly concerned that, without this set-aside, tribal programs
will lose funding because they are forced to compete with all other
programs. We request that Subcommittee reject any decrease in the
programs and, specifically, we ask that the following tribal justice
programs be funded at least at fiscal year 2007 levels:
--Tribal courts--No less than $8 million.
--Indian Country Grant program--No less than $5 million.
--Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands--No less than $20 million
to address the facility needs documented by the Office of the
Inspector General.
--Bureau of Justice Assistance, Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Demonstration Program--No less than $5 million.
Tribal Youth Program.--The Administration again proposes an overall
decrease of $100 million for child safety and juvenile justice
programs. As with state and local law enforcement assistance, the
proposal would consolidate several programs into the new Child Safety
and Juvenile Justice Initiative, a single, flexible, competitive grant
program. This would encompass funding for Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Delinquency Block Grants, Internet
Crimes Against Children, and several other grant programs. By combining
these programs, however, the Administration tries to hide its overall
reduction and also eliminates the set-aside for tribes typically
provided by the Tribal Youth Program earmark. We ask that the
Subcommittee provide at least as much funding for these programs as was
provided last year. Most importantly, we ask that the Subcommittee
restore the $10 million earmark for the Tribal Youth Program.
Indian Country COPS.--The Administration proposes to completely
eliminate funding for the Indian Country COPS program. The
justification provided is that tribes can apply for competitive grants
under other OJP programs, but--as described above--the Administration
is in fact decreasing funding for those programs. Since its
establishment in fiscal year 1999, the COPS program has provided
essential public safety services in Indian County and has assisted
tribes in increasing the number of law enforcement officers. We simply
cannot afford to lose these officers, which is what will occur if COPS
funding is cut. We ask the Subcommittee to restore funding for the COPS
program at $33.2 million, the fiscal year 2007 amount.
Office of Violence Against Women.--The Office of Violence Against
Women administers the programs authorized by the Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA). The most recent VAWA reauthorization provided for a range
of important intervention, support and enforcement programs.
Importantly, that law also provides that 10 percent of all appropriated
funds be set aside for Indian tribes. These programs are of critical
importance in Indian country, where the rates of domestic violence are
extremely high. As Congress found, Indian women are battered at a rate
of 23.2 per 1,000 (compared with 8 per 1,000 among Caucasian women).
From 1979 through 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death
of Indian females aged 15 to 34, and 75 percent were killed by family
members or acquaintances. Rape is also far too common--1 out of every 3
American Indian and Alaska Native women are raped in their lifetimes.
Indian women experience 7 sexual assaults per 1,000 (compared with 4
per 1,000 among Black Americans, 3 per 1,000 among Caucasians, 2 per
1,000 among Hispanic women, and 1 per 1,000 among Asian women).
Unfortunately, these programs have never been funded up to authorized
levels. For fiscal year 2008, the Administration proposes yet another
decrease. We ask the Subcommittee to restore funding for VAWA programs
to at least $387 million, the amount provided in fiscal year 2006.
Office of the United States Attorney.--We would like to see funding
increased for local Assistant U.S. Attorneys with responsibilities for
Indian country law enforcement sufficient to support at least one full-
time position. Currently, the part-time hours of many Indian country
AUSAs make effective law enforcement on our Reservations difficult.
context
We would like to give the Committee a picture of the law
enforcement systems in our communities and some of the specific needs
we face.
Nisqually Tribe.--The Nisqually Reservation is located in
Washington State. Our Reservation is approximately 5,000 acres. We
serve approximately 6,000 Indian people in our service area, about 600
of whom are enrolled tribal members living on the Reservation, and the
rest of whom live in surrounding areas. We have a land-based police
force with nine officers, which is solely responsible for enforcing
tribal law and also works closely with local police on other matters.
Our police also have extensive marine water enforcement duties. We
employ two water patrol officers to patrol over 100 square miles of
Puget Sound for both the treaty salmon fishery and treaty shellfish
harvesting. We also provide hunting enforcement for over 50,000 acres
of land in the Tribe's usual and accustomed area within the Nisqually
River watershed. Besides our police department, we have a tribal court
with two full-time judges, and we employ ten detention officers at our
45-bed detention facility (built in 2002). Like many other tribes, we
are struggling to cope with escalating methamphetamine use and
associated increases in gang activity and property crime related to
dealing and manufacturing.
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.--The 463-square mile Duck Valley
Reservation straddles the border of Nevada and Idaho. We have
approximately 1,700 tribal members, about 900 of whom live on the
Reservation. Our population is very young--nearly 70 percent of our
people are under the age of 34. Much of our law enforcement is handled
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, the DOJ has been an important
source of funding for us--for example, we have received grants in the
past to construct a juvenile detention facility and to encourage
enforcement of protection orders. At this time, our greatest need is
more help from federal law enforcement officials, such as regional
AUSA.
Puyallup Tribe.--The Puyallup Reservation is located in the
urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061-
acre reservation and related urban service area contains 17,000 plus
Indian people from over 435 Tribes and Alaska Villages. The Puyallup
Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has 26 commissioned officers
to cover 40 square miles of reservation in addition to the usual and
accustomed areas. We currently operate with limited equipment, patrol
vehicles requiring constant repair and insufficient staff levels. With
the continuing increase in population, increase in gang related
activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the impact of the increase
in manufacturing of methamphetamines in the region, the services of the
Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division are exceeding maximum levels.
The demand on law enforcement services will increase as tribal
governments continue to enhance civil and criminal justice
administration and as tribal governments play an integral role in
securing America's borders, citizens and physical infrastructure. This
demand is further impacted by the existing and growing ``gang problem''
within the boundaries of the Puyallup Reservation. These gangs are
different than other reservations due to our urban setting (Puget Sound
region of the State of Washington), five other city boundaries next to
our exterior boundaries, six separate local jurisdictions and
Interstate 5 traversing through the reservation. In an effort to combat
these gang activities, the Puyallup Tribal council created a Gang Task
Force from the Tribal Police Department, representatives from various
Tribal Services Divisions and community members. The Gang Task Force
developed a gang policy that includes a four-prong approach to gang
related activities: (1) enforcement, (2) intelligence, (3) education,
and (4) and physical-mental health. We have begun to implement this
strategy, but such a major law enforcement undertaking will require
more officers, additional and continued training, specialized
equipment, and adequate detention facilities for adults and juveniles.
A major area of concern is the status of the Tribe's Regional
Detention Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As
a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility
not only impacts the Tribe's ability to house detainee's but also the
approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup
Incarceration facility during the period of 2001-2002. Relocation to
the modular facility has also impacted the Tribes ability to house
juvenile detainees. With no juvenile facilities, our youth are sent to
non-Native facilities. Both the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Justice have essentially stopped providing construction
funding since 1998. Yet the need for new and replacement facilities is
still great.
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.--The Fond du Lac Band's
law enforcement program grew out of the Band's responsibilities for
enforcing conservation laws that protect natural resources and regulate
Band members who hunt, fish and gather those resources both within and
outside the Reservation pursuant to rights reserved under Treaties with
the United States in 1837 and 1854. The Band's rights to hunt, fish and
gather on lands ceded under these treaties have been recognized and
upheld by the federal courts and the United States Supreme Court. Under
established Band conservation law, the Band is responsible for
enforcing regulations over approximately 8,000,000 acres in northern
and central Minnesota. It is also essential that the Band continue to
manage its on-reservation resources in order to meet the demands of an
increasing population. The on-reservation resources are vitally
important to Band members as they provide the foundation for our
culture, subsistence, employment and recreation.
Following a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in 1997 holding that
the State did not have jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws on roads
within Indian reservations, the Band needed to establish a Tribal law
enforcement department to address on-reservation law enforcement needs.
The Band has done this, using a combination of tribal funds and federal
funds (made available through the Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) program and the Bureau of Indian Affairs), and by entering into
cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies. Due in
large part to that decision, the Band responds to a few thousand calls
every year including traffic stops, domestic assaults, disturbance,
theft and drug and alcohol related incidences, to name just a few. The
Band has also experienced an increase in law enforcement
responsibilities as a result of the insurgence of methamphetamine and
prescription drug use on our Reservation. Drug-related deaths and crime
are dramatically increasing on our Reservation which in turn
drastically increases our law enforcement responsibilities.
With these increased responsibilities, the Band has begun to plan
and develop strategies to address our law enforcement needs, including
staffing, training, equipment, and educating our youth to prevent crime
and drug use. The Band currently operates its law enforcement program
with ten officers but would be able to better address the growing law
enforcement needs if the Band had 15-20 officers, which would require
additional funding for staffing, training, recruitment and retention.
Further, the current budget does not allow the Band to offer
competitive salaries needed to recruit and retain officers. Additional
tribal officers would also enable the Band to ensure that a School
Resource Officer be permanently located at the Ojibwe School and would
allow the Band to implement programs aimed at educating youth about a
career in tribal law enforcement. The Band is also developing a tribal
process for issuing and enforcing orders for protection, which will
compliment our existing family support services programs. In regards to
equipment, the Band would be more efficient if it had its own
intoxilizer instead of having to transport arrestees an hour away to
the St. Louis County Jail for DWI processing. Lastly, and of
significant importance, the Band anticipates that additional funding
will be necessary to address support costs associated with upgrading to
the advanced dispatching system already in use by St. Louis and Carlton
Counties.
conclusion
The need for law enforcement resources in each of our communities
is great. We ask that the Subcommittee recognize the important role
that the Department of Justice plays in providing law enforcement
resources to tribes. At a minimum, we ask you to reject the
Administration's proposal to eliminate specific tribal programs under
its jurisdiction. If we can provide any additional information, please
do not hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C.
Rolnick at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, 1425 K
Street NW, Ste. 600, Washington D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-
682-0249 (fax); [email protected]; [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the UNH Cooperative Extension
Madam Chairwoman and Honorable members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of an
appropriation of $1,300,000 from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program to protect the 288-acre Isinglass River
Conservation Corridor in New Hampshire.
In addition, I would like to urge your support for a substantial
increase in overall funding for the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program in fiscal year 2008 to enable the protection of
significantly more coastal resources than in previous years. While we
are pleased that the program has been recommended in the President's
budget for $15 million, this level, while a good first step, is
inadequate when compared to the needs from across the country, and what
Congress has historically provided for this program.
I work with UNH Cooperative Extension as an Educator in Land and
Water Conservation in 62 communities within Rockingham County and north
to the extent of the Great Bay watershed. My involvement with
conservation over the past three years has resulted in the successful
completion of more than 130 projects covering in excess of 6,000 acres.
The Isinglass River Conservation Corridor is one of the most exciting
that I have been involved with during this period. My role from the
outset has been to bring the landowner, the community, a regional land
trust Bear-Paw Regional Greenways and the Trust for Public Lands
together to try to find a way to conserve the keystone property in this
important river corridor.
Of New Hampshire's many waterways, only 14 rivers have the
distinction of being officially recognized by the state's Rivers
Management Protection Program for outstanding natural and cultural
resources. The Isinglass River, which flows freely for its entire 18-
mile course through the southeastern portion of the state, is one of
these select few. Winding its way through one of the most rapidly
developing portions of the state, the scenic and ecological conditions
which make the Isinglass so unique are increasingly in jeopardy. As
expanding development is frequently accompanied by habitat loss,
degradation of water quality, and loss of recreational opportunities,
programs such as the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
(CELCP) have been established to help protect and preserve landscapes
vital to the healthy functioning of ecosystem processes.
The Isinglass River property is 288 forested acres bounded to the
west, northwest, and northeast by the Isinglass River. It is surrounded
by 1,500 acres of contiguous forest, and has 7,800 feet of river
frontage. The Isinglass River property is the top priority for the
State of New Hampshire for CELCP funding in fiscal year 2008 and is
located in a section of the river that is identified as a Conservation
Focus Area in the New Hampshire Coastal Management Plan. In 2005, the
New Hampshire State Wildlife Action Plan categorized the river corridor
as Tier I habitat, the highest quality designation in the State. The
current landowner has already submitted a subdivision plan for 72
housing lots, which would forever fragment this large, undeveloped
block of land along the Isinglass River.
The length of the Isinglass River provides home to a variety of
wildlife, including mink, otter, raccoon, deer, moose, black bear and
bobcat, all of which would be threatened if development were to
proceed. A wildlife inventory of the Isinglass corridor has confirmed
the presence of several species classified at the federal and state
level as threatened, endangered, or of special concern, which include
the American bald eagle, common loon, osprey, Cooper's hawk, wood
turtle, Blanding's turtle and spotted turtle. There is also the
presence of a seven-acre beaver impoundment. The Isinglass River itself
is considered an important fishery. Naturally occurring warm-water game
fish include small and largemouth bass in the lower portion of the
river. The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game annually stocks
more than 3,000 rainbow trout and 2,500 brook trout in the headwaters.
In addition, over 73,000 Atlantic salmon fry are being stocked as part
of an ongoing anadromous fish restoration effort. Several species of
concern also are known to live in the Isinglass River, including the
American eel, banded sunfish, bridle shiner, and the blacknose shiner,
a fish located in only one other waterway in the state.
The Isinglass River property will offer recreational benefits as
well as habitat protection. A trail network already exists on the
property, which makes hiking a main activity. Pig Lane, the road that
provides access to the Isinglass River property, is used extensively
for mountain biking. Hunting and fishing have long been historic uses
of the property, and access for these activities will continue. The
Isinglass River itself has been used extensively for fishing, boating,
and other recreational uses. The river is considered to be an important
seacoast trout stream and is heavily utilized by local anglers. Due to
the free-flowing nature of the Isinglass River it provides both
challenging whitewater and relaxing flatwater boating opportunities for
canoeists and kayakers. Because of the importance of Isinglass River,
as a fishery and recreational boating destination, New Hampshire Fish
and Game would be interested in constructing and maintaining a car-top
boat launch with access through Pig Lane.
A fiscal year 2008 Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
(CELCP) appropriation of $1.3 million, directed to the Town of
Strafford, is needed to acquire and conserve this property. This
appropriation will be matched with funds from the New Hampshire Land
and Community Heritage Investment Program, New Hampshire Fish and Game,
and private donations, and the value of match properties. The Town of
Strafford has already committed up to $200,000 towards acquisition of
this property.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to provide this
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Clear Creek Nature and Cultural Tourism
Council
Madam Chairwoman and Honorable members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $705,000 from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program to acquire potential parkland along Clear Creek in
Webster, Texas.
note about organization
Identified for acquisition with fiscal year 2008 funds are
approximately 90 acres in several ownerships within the proposed Clear
Creek Park boundaries. Once acquired, the City of Webster will own and
maintain the land as a public park and conservation area. Purchase of
these properties is critical to the protection of habitat and
recreational open space along Clear Creek, one of the few remaining
unchannelized stream and river corridors in the Houston metropolitan
area. Development is currently the largest threat to habitat in the
Galveston Bay estuary, and some parcels within the park area have
already been sold. If additional tracts in the proposed Clear Creek
Park area are developed, the creek's floodway would be degraded by loss
of wetlands and increase in runoff pollutants.
The Clear Creek corridor offers the potential for significant
recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. Several parks
operated by local governments extend along the creek, including Harris
County's Challenger Seven Memorial Park, Galveston County's Walker Hall
Park, and League City's Erikson Tract and Clear Creek Nature Park. In
order to enlarge and further link this important corridor of parks and
reserves, the City of Webster has proposed the acquisition of
approximately 200 acres along the northern banks of the creek for a new
Clear Creek Park. Within the planned park area, the City of Webster
envisions building a trail along Clear Creek for hiking and biking. The
trail will also feature access to launch sites on the creek for
canoeing and kayaking, small piers for fishing, observation points and
decks for bird watching, and picnic areas for families. The multiple
opportunities along the trail are expected to accommodate and
contribute to outdoors and environmental education. The opening of a
trail would also advance the Galveston Bay Estuary Program's goal of
increasing public access to Galveston Bay and its tributaries.
Galveston Bay was recognized in 1988 as an estuary of national
importance in the EPA's National Estuary Program, one of 28 such
estuaries in the nation. The comprehensive management plan of the
Galveston Bay Estuary Program identified wetlands habitat loss and
degradation as a priority problem in the estuarine system. Webster lies
at the lower end of the Clear Creek watershed and is home to diverse
communities of ecologically important coastal habitats and systems.
Riparian forests of willow oaks, water oaks, and cedar elms provide
habitat for amphibians, owls, hawks, neotropical migrant birds, and the
reddish egret, a state-listed threatened bird species. Along the creek
banks are several areas of coastal prairie. Near Clear Lake and the
entrance to Galveston Bay, marshes, wetlands, and embayments support
fish, waterfowl, and migrant birds.
An appropriation of $705,000 from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program (CELCP) is needed in fiscal year 2008. Clear Creek
Park will protect critical coastal land and provide multiple
recreational possibilities to residents of Webster and other nearby
communities.
In addition to specifically funding Clear Creek, I urge your
support for a substantial increase in overall funding for the Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation Program in fiscal year 2008 to enable
the protection of significantly more coastal resources than in previous
years. While I am pleased that the program has finally been recommended
in the President's budget for $15 million, this level, while a good
first step, is inadequate when compared to the needs from across the
country, and what Congress has historically provided for this program.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony in support of the Clear Creek project and the CELCP program.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Thank you for the opportunity to offer the recommendations of The
Nature Conservancy on the fiscal year 2008 budget for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In general, we are concerned that funding for oceans in general and
NOAA specifically is declining. The Conservancy urges the Committee to
provide appropriations for NOAA at or approaching $4.5 billion, as
recommended by the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative and the Friends
of NOAA Coalition. This funding level for NOAA would allow enhancements
in the development of an integrated ocean and atmospheric observing
system; increased research and education activities, expanded ocean
conservation and management programs; and provide critical improvements
in infrastructure (satellites, ships, high performance computers,
facilities), and data management. Such an increase would represent
significant progress toward addressing recommendations contained in the
reports of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission.
The Conservancy works to identify priorities for coastal and marine
conservation through marine ecoregional plans. We identify present and
likely future threats to marine biological diversity before attempting
to identify appropriate strategies for conservation. At more than one
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
conservation work:
--We rely upon NOAA's data, research, and monitoring of coastal and
marine systems, and have several shared priorities on which we
collaborate. For example, NOAA's Coastal Services Center
maintains a strong customer-service, partnership-oriented
approach to providing needed information and technical
assistance to states, local governments, other federal
agencies, and the private sector to inform decision-making.
--We rely on NOAA's programs that support site-based conservation--
those that fund conservation and restoration activities, and
those that provide for management of coastal and marine
systems. NOAA's ability to meet its requirements under various
resource management statutes could be significantly improved by
enhancing the agency's ability to fund on-the-ground
conservation needs. Programs such as Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation, Community-based Restoration, Open Rivers
Initiative are excellent examples of NOAA taking a practical,
community-oriented approach to conservation and management of
coastal and marine resources. These programs should be
expanded.
--NOAA's contributions to state and local implementation and
educational programs help to ensure that the human capacity
exists to address environmental management issues at the
necessary scale. We are concerned that NOAA's support for human
capacity to implement programs within the agency and at the
state and local levels is often the first to go in tight budget
environments. The Committee should provide funding for staff
capacity to provide technical assistance, efficiently manage
grants and programs, and help to measure effectiveness.
Finally, we would like to offer the Committee our recommendations
regarding funding levels and guidance regarding implementation of a
number of key NOAA programs.
NOAA Habitat Restoration
The Nature Conservancy requests increased funding for habitat
conservation and restoration to support fisheries management
objectives, protected species recovery, and other coastal and marine
management requirements. Through existing programs, NOAA has clearly
demonstrated their capability to achieve results by advancing
constructive, on-the-ground and in-the-water habitat conservation.
Habitat losses have a substantial impact on the health and productivity
of marine ecosystems, yet NOAA's ability to work closely with
communities around the country to stem or reverse these losses is
constrained by the relatively small amount of funding they receive.
We would urge you to consider increasing funding for the following
programs in NMFS Office of Habitat and in the Office of Protected
Resources:
National Marine Fisheries Service--Office of Habitat,
Fisheries Habitat Restoration
Penobscot River Restoration ($10 million in fiscal year 2008).--In
a 2004 study, the National Research Council \1\ identified removal of
dams as a top priority near term action required to recover Atlantic
salmon in Maine. Removal of the Veazie and Howland dams and
modifications proposed at Howland dam on the mainstem of the Penobscot
River--Maine's largest river system--present a remarkable opportunity
to recover a species. This project will improve access to almost 1,000
miles of habitat for Atlantic salmon, thousands of miles of habitat for
American eel, and hundreds of miles for alewives. Atlantic sturgeon,
shortnose sturgeon (both federally listed), tomcod, and smelt will
recover lost access to their historic habitat ranges. Additionally,
this project will provide benefits to the Penobscot Indian nation, will
provide new recreational opportunities, and will come with no net loss
of power production from the river, maintaining a clean and secure
energy source for Maine's residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council. Atlantic Salmon in Maine. National
Academies Press. 275 pp. 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community-based Restoration Program ($20 million in fiscal year
2008).--Currently this program, with its exceptional 10-year track
record, is able to fund only about 15 percent of the proposals it
receives. Additional funds would be well-spent.
Open Rivers Initiative ($10 million in fiscal year 2008).--In
addition to the large barriers on rivers like the Penobscot, there are
hundreds of thousands of small degraded barriers on rivers and streams
across the United States. This Initiative is part of a multi-agency
commitment to address this problem. We urge you to ensure that this new
program is additive to NOAA's habitat restoration capacity, and doesn't
reduce funding available for existing programs.
National Marine Fisheries Service--Office of Protected
Resources
Cooperation with the States ($5 million in fiscal year 2008).--
Through this program, authorized under Section 6 of the Endangered
Species Act, NMFS may provide grants to support conservation actions
that contribute to recovery, including management, outreach, research,
and monitoring projects that have direct conservation benefits for
listed species, recently de-listed species, and candidate species that
reside within that State. A comparable program for cooperation with
states on ESA activities exists in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
been very successful in catalyzing and funding activities that
contribution to the recovery of listed species.
With the exception of jointly managed species (Atlantic salmon)
activities related to NMFS jurisdiction species are not eligible for
funding under the FWS program. NMFS has management responsibility for
56 listed marine species in the United States. While substantial
federal funding is directed to Pacific salmon species under their
jurisdiction, there are few resources available to support proactive
conservation efforts geared toward recovery of the other 30 species for
which they have sole or joint management responsibility.
With increased funding under this program, states would have a
strong incentive to enter into cooperative agreements with NMFS under
Section 6 and NMFS would have tools and resources to support more on
the ground conservation efforts to abate threats to listed species
(most grants to date have been for research or monitoring activities).
This program has received $990,000 each year since fiscal year
2003. On average, approximately 80 percent of appropriated funds have
been granted each year with a minimum 25 percent non-federal cost
share. Remaining funds are used for program management.
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP)
The Nature Conservancy supports funding CELCP at $80 to $100
million for fiscal year 2008 and looks forward to working with the
Committee to guide selection of high priority projects. We recognize
that this is a substantial increase of prior year funding levels, but
feel that it is warranted given the extraordinary circumstances
surrounding the fiscal year 2007 budget and the pent-up demand left
over from what we expect to be comparatively low funding levels in
fiscal year 2007. We believe that the list of projects developed in
fiscal year 2007 by NOAA to identify important, eligible and ready
projects was a significant improvement to the program and hope that a
similar list will be made available soon to offer guidance for the
fiscal year 2008 process. We hope that it will be useful to the
Committee as you make decisions regarding the future direction of this
important program.
We are concerned that NOAA continues to impose a $3 million per
project cap in the guidance for the call for proposals. We are
concerned that this cap may be either unnecessarily constraining or may
lead to inflated project proposals. States should be encouraged to
request what is needed to complete a given project within an
appropriate timeframe, and should work with NOAA and the Congress to
ensure adequate funding is available within budget constraints.
Finally, we are increasingly concerned about the lack of dedicated
staff capacity for CELCP at NOAA. Current practice is to assess a
percentage of the project appropriation to cover NOAA staff costs. The
problem is that up to a point, the costs of running a program are
fixed. NOAA needs a dedicated line of funding to support program
administration and management, and should be prohibited from assessing
a percentage of project allocations to cover administrative costs.
Coral Reef Conservation Program and Coral Reef Watch
The Conservancy has developed a strong partnership with NOAA's
Coral Reef program, and we are delighted with their enthusiastic desire
to work together on improving resilience of coral reefs, developing
approaches for sustainable financing for coral conservation activities
at the local level, and other creative approaches to reducing threats
to corals. We would urge you provide $30.5 million for the program in
fiscal year 2008, an increase over the Administration request of
$25.797 million. The $30.5 million requested would include $1.5 million
to support ``Local Action Strategies,'' a unique partnership between
NOAA and states and territories to address threats to coral reefs at
the local level.
However, we are concerned with the decision made in the fiscal year
2006 conference to cut funding for NESDIS coral monitoring in fiscal
year 2006. Funding for Coral Reef Watch was included in bills produced
by both chambers and the President requested $737,000 for this modest
but effective program known as ``Coral Reef Watch.'' The program has
received full funding in fiscal year 2007. In 2005, not only did NESDIS
scientists in this program predict a major coral bleaching event in the
Caribbean, but these scientists were able to reach out to NMFS, NOS and
partners in the region to use the attention generated by the event to
help local managers take action to help reefs recover from the
devastating effects of bleaching.
Gulf of Mexico Governor's Alliance
The Administration's budget included a request for $5 million to
help implement the Gulf of Mexico Governors' Action Plan. The
Conservancy urges the Committee to provide at least this amount to
leverage action on the commitments made by the Gulf Coast Governors.
The Alliance identified five priority issues that are regionally
significant and can be effectively addressed through increased
collaboration at state, local, and federal levels:
--Improvement in Gulf water quality, with an emphasis on healthy
beaches and shellfish beds;
--Restoration and conservation of coastal wetlands;
--Environmental education;
--Identification and characterization of Gulf habitats to inform
management decisions; and
--Reductions in nutrient loading.
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund
The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) has funded hundreds
of successful on the ground salmon conservation efforts, and we are
pleased that NOAA and the states receiving these funds have greatly
improved tracking the process of restoration and management under this
important program.
This program is a critical complement to federal salmon recovery
and management efforts. It enables the state to initiate restoration of
salmon habitat and manage fisheries in areas beyond the reach of the
federal government, e.g. on private lands. The PCSRF enables the states
to leverage significant amounts of state funding to address the needs
of private landowners in complying with the Endangered Species Act,
maintaining the economic viability of these lands, while greatly
contributing to economic recovery.
We are concerned about the decline in funding for the program, from
$89 million in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 to $67 million in
fiscal year 2006, and $66.8 million in the President's fiscal year 2008
request. The Conservancy strongly supports $100 million for this
program. We are also concerned how the funds are allocated across the
five states involved in the program. We feel that the conservation
activities oriented towards recovery and protection of salmon should be
the primary purpose of this program, and therefore urge the committee
to consider including report language in this year's appropriation that
more explicitly links expenditures of PCSRF funds to recovery actions
identified in federal and state salmon recovery and management plans,
where applicable.
Thank you for this opportunity to share with the Committee the
Conservancy's priorities in NOAA's fiscal year 2008 budget. We would be
pleased to provide the Committee with additional information on any of
the Conservancy's activities described here or elsewhere. You may
contact Erika Feller at 703-841-5374 or via email at [email protected],
if you have questions on which we might be of assistance.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. Our on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation work
is carried out in all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries and is
supported by approximately one million individual members. We have
helped conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States
and Canada and more than 102 million acres with local partner
organizations globally.
The Conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves
throughout the United States--the largest private system of nature
sanctuaries in the world. We recognize, however, that our mission
cannot be achieved by core protected areas alone. Therefore, our
projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human uses to
address sustained human well-being.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 375
American:
Astronomical Society, Prepared Statement of the.............. 415
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 448
Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the.. 426
Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statements of the......427, 429
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 420
Association of National Estuary Programs, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 465
Bement, Dr. Arden, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation.... 131
Prepared Statement of........................................ 133
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 105
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.................... 451
Clark, John F., Director, United States Marshals Service,
Department of Justice.......................................... 226
Biographical Sketch of....................................... 235
Prepared Statement of........................................ 228
Questions Submitted to....................................... 289
Clear Creek Nature and Cultural Tourism Council, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 470
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
Questions Submitted by.......................................287, 340
Dudas, Jon W., Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Department of Commerce......................................... 40
Prepared Statement of........................................ 42
Earp, Naomi Churchill, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission..................................................... 343
Prepared Statement of........................................ 349
Summary Statement of......................................... 346
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 157
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Prepared Statement of............... 422
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 465
Gaviota Coast Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the............. 421
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 458
Griffin, Hon. Michael D., Ph.D., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration........................... 161
Opening Remarks.............................................. 166
Prepared Statement of........................................ 167
Gutierrez, the Honorable Carlos M., Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Commerce.............................. 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
by............................................................. 374
Investment Company Institute, Prepared Statement of the.......... 406
Jeffrey, Dr. William, Director, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of Commerce......................... 32
Prepared Statement of........................................ 34
Kennedy, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Massachusetts, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 377
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 103
Land Trust Alliance, Prepared Statement of the................... 465
Lautenbacher, Vice Admiral Conrad, Jr., Administrator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. 117
Prepared Statement of........................................ 124
Questions Submitted to....................................... 152
Summary Statement of......................................... 121
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 297
Questions Submitted by................................100, 256, 323
Statement of................................................. 295
Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the. 453
Meuller, Hon. Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Justice........................... 295
Prepared Statement of........................................ 306
Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
Opening Statement of......................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 301
Questions Submitted by............................61, 152, 249, 369
Statements of....................................117, 161, 197, 343
National:
Association of Marine Laboratories, Prepared Statement of the 439
Center for Victims of Crime, Prepared Statement of the....... 446
Corn Growers Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 456
Employment Lawyers Association, Prepared Statement of the.... 381
Federation of Community Broadcasters, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 419
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...... 416
Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Prepared Statement of the....... 434
Treasury Employees Union, Prepared Statement of the.......... 407
Nisqually Tribe of Washington, Prepared Statement of the......... 465
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the. 435
Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 413
Population Association of America/Association of Population
Centers, Prepared Statement of the............................. 438
Puyallup Tribe of Washington, Prepared Statement of the.......... 465
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 104
Restore America's Estuaries, Prepared Statement of............... 465
Sea Grant Association, Prepared Statement of the................. 443
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
Questions Submitted by......................109, 160, 252, 272, 289
Statement of.............................3, 119, 163, 198, 298, 345
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 465
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Question
Submitted by................................................... 288
Sullivan, Michael J., Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice........ 197
Biographical Sketch of....................................... 209
Prepared Statement of........................................ 203
Questions Submitted to....................................... 249
Summary Statement of......................................... 202
Tandy, Hon. Karen P., Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice.......................... 209
Prepared Statement of........................................ 212
Questions Submitted to....................................... 256
The Conservation Fund, Prepared Statement of..................... 465
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statements of.................465, 471
The Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of..................... 465
The Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statement of................. 465
UNH Cooperative Extension, Prepared Statement of the............. 469
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement of
the............................................................ 430
West Creek Preservation Committee, Prepared Statement of the..... 424
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
Page
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Additional Committee Questions................................... 61
American Competitiveness Initiative.............................. 51
Center for Nano-Scale Science Technology......................... 58
Disaster Resilient Structures Studies............................ 51
Effectiveness of Manufacturing Extension Partnership............. 59
National Institute of Standards and Technology:
Collaboration With Industry.................................. 60
Funding Increase for American Competitiveness Initiative..... 57
Safety of Nano-Technology........................................ 58
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 151
American Competitiveness Initiative.............................. 136
Aquaculture...................................................... 153
Coastal:
Non-Point Pollution.......................................... 157
Zone Management Grants....................................... 158
``Counterfeit'' Fish............................................. 152
Fiscal Year:
2006 Accomplishments......................................... 125
2008 Budget Request.......................................... 123
Highlights............................................... 127
Funding Increases for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Satellite Program............................... 146
Funding Levels for Severe Weather Research....................... 159
GOES Satellite Construction Time................................. 156
GOES-R Program TRL Level......................................... 155
International Polar Year Projects................................ 144
International Whaling Commission................................. 145
National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Change............ 135
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Center for Weather and Climate Prediction Project............ 154
Corps Reauthorization........................................ 160
Disaster Response Centers.................................... 138
Sea Grant Program............................................ 139
Tsunami Warning Program...................................... 134
NPOESS and GOES-R Funding Request................................ 155
NRDC vs. Rodgers Settlement Implementation....................... 158
Ocean Initiative Funding......................................... 160
Polar Satellites................................................. 148
Probability of GOES-R Operational Gap............................ 156
Progress on the U.S. Ocean Action Plan........................... 152
Regional Fisheries Council....................................... 138
Renewable Energy Research........................................ 142
Susquehanna Basin Monitoring System.............................. 135
Tsunami Warning System........................................... 134
Weather Modification Research.................................... 140
Office of the Secretary
Additional Committee Questions................................... 61
Addressing:
Patent Pendency and Application Backlog...................... 16
Recruitment, Training and Retention Challenges............... 19
Augustine Report on Immigration.................................. 24
BEA's R&D Budget Initiative...................................... 109
CAFTA--Sock Trade................................................ 109
Census Deputy Director........................................... 30
Continued Dumping Subsidy Offset Act of 2000..................... 106
Departmental Management:
Media Questions.............................................. 79
WCF and A&R.................................................. 61
Doha Dispute Settlement Negotiations............................. 107
DVD Piracy in Mexico............................................. 114
Dynamics of Economic Well-Being.................................. 91
Economic Development Administration Cut.......................... 87
Economic Development Representative.............................. 86
ESA Headquarters Staffing and Funding Levels..................... 90
Executive Summary................................................ 13
Federal Consistency Standards and the CZMA for Florida and
Alabama........................................................ 112
Funding for NOAA Education Programs.............................. 92
Funding Levels for Severe Weather Forecasting.................... 113
Gross Domestic Product Revision.................................. 22
Improved Measurement of Services................................. 91
Increase Examiner Retention...................................... 94
ITA:
Assistant Secretary Status................................... 92
CAFTA Nations................................................ 114
Chinese Subsidy Programs..................................... 92
Export Fee Increase.......................................... 91
Trade Act 2002............................................... 105
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.......................100, 101
Long-term Metric/Goal for Patent Pendency........................ 94
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)........................ 28
And Economic Development Administration Funding.............. 26
And Energy Costs............................................. 104
Defense Suppliers............................................ 103
Funding Levels............................................... 97
Program...................................................... 102
Meeting With Senator Reed's Staff on the Efficiency of Regional
Development Accounts........................................... 27
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Exclusion from American Competitiveness Initiative........... 22
JOCI and the Ocean Policy Scorecard.......................... 110
National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System..................................................... 23
NTIA:
Appropriation Language....................................... 98
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program..... 110
Patent and Trademark Office:
Allowance Versus Patent Rejection............................ 113
Examination Quality.......................................... 97
Remediation Plan............................................. 12
Promoting Innovation............................................. 12
Reauthorization of the NOAA Corps................................ 112
Retention Rate................................................... 94
Security of Personally Identifiable Information on Laptops and
Other Portable Devices......................................... 111
Special Bill Language............................................ 80
Staffing Breakout................................................ 87
Survey of Income and Program Participation....................... 104
Technology Administration Staffing and Unobligated Balances...... 97
Timeline for Achieving Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives....... 95
2010 Census:
Cost Effectiveness........................................... 110
Handheld Computers........................................... 114
United States PTO:
Patent Backlog............................................... 94
Report ``The Path to the Future, the Next Steps''............ 13
Unobligated Balance Levels....................................... 87
Work With User Community to Evaluate Quality..................... 97
WTO:
Appellate Body............................................... 108
Disputes..................................................... 106
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Additional Committee Questions................................... 61
Cost of Intellectual Property Theft.............................. 53
Human Capital Management Reviews................................. 54
Intellectual Property:
Law Enforcement.............................................. 52
Theft........................................................ 52
Patent and Trademark Office:
Applications and Pendency.................................... 48
Examination Quality.......................................... 53
Retention and Training....................................... 49
Relationship with Food and Drug Administration................... 56
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Accomplishments.................................................. 203
Additional Committee Questions................................... 248
ATF's Mission.................................................... 203
Crime Gun Traces................................................. 241
Explosives....................................................... 254
Federal Firearms Licensees....................................... 250
Firearms Trafficking............................................. 205
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request.................................. 203
Funding Shortfall................................................ 252
Gangs and Gun Trafficking........................................ 252
National Center for Explosives Training and Research............. 239
Redstone..................................................... 253
Other Programs and Activities.................................... 206
Project Safe Neighborhoods and Anti-gang Efforts................. 204
Tiahrt Amendment................................................. 249
Trace Data Disclosure............................................ 243
Virginia Tech.................................................... 240
Situation.................................................... 236
Drug Enforcement Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 248
Cocaine.......................................................... 260
DEA:
NM Resources................................................. 287
State and Local Assistance................................... 256
Despite the Accomplishments, the Challenges Remain............... 217
Drug Use......................................................... 268
Enforcement Successes Over the Last 12 Months.................... 213
Financial Investigations......................................... 274
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request.................................. 217
Hiring Freeze.................................................... 245
International Drug Issues........................................ 262
Internet......................................................... 278
Marijuana........................................................ 286
MET Program...................................................... 283
Methamphetamine...........................................264, 272, 288
Labs in Alaska............................................... 243
Prescription Drug Abuse.......................................... 257
Salaries and Expenses Account.................................... 217
Southwest Border and Meth Enforcement Initiative................. 246
Surveillance..................................................... 282
Teenage Drug Use is Down......................................... 212
United States/Mexico Collaboration............................... 284
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Additional Committee Questions................................... 323
Background Checks to Investigate Crime........................... 319
Budget Request................................................... 313
Child Pornography................................................ 304
Combating Terrorism............................................303, 306
COPS Program..................................................... 318
Defeating Foreign Intelligence Operations........................ 308
Foreign Intelligence Operations.................................. 304
Guns to Terrorists............................................... 319
Indian Country Methamphetamine Problems.......................... 340
Infrastructure and Information Technology........................ 305
Integrated Wireless Network...................................... 326
Intellectual Property Enforcement................................ 327
Intelligence Analysts............................................ 320
Internet Crime................................................... 341
National Security Letters......................................312, 328
Political Landscape ``Informational Briefings'' by White House
for Senior Government Officials................................ 339
Preventing the Acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)/
Render Safe.................................................... 307
Privacy/DNA Sampling............................................. 329
Reduce Child Exploitation and Violent Crimes..................... 308
Sentinel.......................................................314, 323
Contractors Involved in Virtual Case File.................... 316
Strengthening Infrastructure and Information Technology.......... 309
Terrorism........................................................ 311
Training at Quantico............................................. 321
2008 Budget Request.............................................. 306
``Unfunded FTE'' Reduction....................................... 309
Violent Crime.............................................310, 316, 324
Weapons of Mass Destruction...................................... 304
United States Marshals Service
Adam Walsh....................................................... 290
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act....................... 232
Additional Committee Questions................................... 248
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request.................................. 229
Former Marshal's Daughter Heroic Efforts in Campus Shooting...... 293
Fugitive Investigations.......................................... 233
Gangs............................................................ 292
Gulf Coast Task Force............................................ 289
High-threat Trial Security....................................... 231
Homeland Build Up................................................ 292
Judicial Threat Intelligence and Investigations.................. 229
Marshals D.C. Superior Court..................................... 291
Southwest Border Enforcement..................................... 232
Summary of Fiscal Year 2006 Accomplishments...................... 228
The Mission of the United States Marshals Service................ 228
2007 Global War on Terror Supplemental........................... 235
Witness Security Program......................................... 234
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Additional Committee Questions................................... 369
Backlogs......................................................... 369
BRAC in Maryland................................................. 374
Downsizing Baltimore Office...................................... 363
EEOC:
Oversight of EEO Offices..................................... 373
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request.............................. 349
Funding.......................................................... 362
Headquarters Relocation Plans.................................... 367
National:
Call Center.................................................. 366
Contact Center and Repositioning............................. 352
Office Closures.................................................. 354
Repositioning Plan.............................................355, 360
Salvation Army Litigation........................................ 357
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Aging National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Infrastructure................................................. 182
American Competitiveness Initiative.............................. 191
Chinese ASAT Test................................................ 192
Earth Observing Sensors.......................................... 179
Education Program................................................ 183
Hubble Space Telescope........................................... 179
Independent Program Analysis Organization........................ 190
Manned Flight of Orion Vehicle................................... 181
Math and Science Institutions.................................... 187
National Academy of Sciences Report on Earth Science............. 193
Orion Crew Return Vehicle/Ares Launch Vehicle.................... 189
Precursor Program for Lunar Exploration.......................... 181
Propulsion Research and Development.............................. 182
Ranking Member Shelby Closing Remarks............................ 195
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).......... 184
Space Shuttle Retirement......................................... 188
Status of the Exploration Activities............................. 192
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).. 140
Program Enhanced............................................. 148
International Polar Year and the Alaska Region Research Vessel... 143
National Science Foundation:
Days......................................................... 147
Education Programs and American Competitiveness Initiative... 137
Facility Funding............................................. 149
-