    [Senate Hearing 110-628]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 110-628

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2009

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                    S. 3182

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
       JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             Department of Justice
                 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
    41-242 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; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                                   __________
                          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 6, 2008

                                                                       Page

    Department of Commerce: Secretary of Commerce....................     1

                            Thursday, April 3, 2008

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................    53

                            Thursday, April 10, 2008

    Department of Justice: Attorney General..........................    99

                           Wednesday, April 16, 2008

    Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation...........   171

                               Submitted Material

    Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administra-
      tion...........................................................   201
    National Science Foundation......................................   212
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   222

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2009

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Reed, Shelby, Stevens, and
    Brownback.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

    STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, SECRETARY

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    and Science will come to order. Today we are going to review
    the appropriations request at the Department of Commerce.
        There will only be a single witness, it will be Secretary
    Gutierrez. And we want to note that this is Secretary
    Gutierrez's fourth appearance before the subcommittee, and this
    Chairperson wants to really say that we've had a very
    productive relationship with him and his team. It has been
    characterized by content-rich conversations, by candor, by
    civility--we think it's been a model of the way people, if we
    work together, we can get the job done.
        So, we look forward to hearing your testimony. This is our
    first hearing of this subcommittee for this year, and I want to
    thank, once again, Senator Shelby and his staff for their
    ongoing, bipartisan cooperation.
        Last year was kind of a difficult year, particularly at the
    end, but Senator Shelby--you and your team were just great.
        As we look at this year's appropriation, we note that we
    are in a year of transition. This time next year, we will have
    a new President, and--a new administration. What we are very
    clear about on this subcommittee is that this appropriation
    that we do this year will be the operating budget for the first
    year of the first term of the new President.
        So, we've got to get it right. Because regardless of who
    America chooses, they will have the 2009 appropriations as
    their first year of operation. So, in the areas for which we
    have responsibility, we want to have everything as very clear
    and well-established to continue our national priorities. And
    we will be working together on a bipartisan basis.
        What we want to do at this hearing is to hear from the
    Secretary about the appropriations, we want to hear
    particularly about how he relates it to the mission of the
    agency, and also where we are on issues like the America's
    Competes Act.
        The other is that we will also focus on what we call red
    zone issues, which are areas where there are significant
    challenges within agencies at the Department of Commerce. We're
    concerned about the 2010 census, that we're able to do it
    right, and we understand there's some technological and
    managerial challenges there.
        The other that we continue to be concerned about is the
    cost overruns of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) satellite program and then the perpetual
    backlog at the Patent Office. All three of those have dramatic
    consequences--not only on the Appropriations Committee, but on,
    essentially, the running of America.
        The census must be done, it deals with how we will
    apportion politically, and other information. The NOAA
    satellites stand sentry, giving us crucial weather information
    that saves lives, and it's the Patent Office that helps us do
    innovation--we take innovation and by turning it into a patent,
    we then, essentially, help our private sector be able to
    protect against those who would steal our intellectual
    property, around the world.
        As we look at this year's appropriation, we know the
    request is over $8 billion--it's $1.3 billion over 2008, which
    we appreciate, but what we're concerned about is that it also
    eliminates two programs that help our economy--the economic
    development assistance grants, which is a stand-alone agency,
    and the manufacturing extension partnership, which is over at
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
        The budget also falls short, we believe, in other areas of
    innovation. At NIST we applaud that the laboratory program
    request is $535 million, almost $100 million over the omnibus,
    but it is offset by the termination of important grant
    programs, which were authorized in the America Competes Act.
        At NOAA, the request is for $4 billion--almost one-half of
    the total Commerce Department's appropriation request. And when
    one looks at it, you see it's $200 million over 2008. And, we
    could say, ``Wow, we're going to really get serious about
    weather and oceans and global warming, and science education,''
    but really where the money is, is in the satellite program, and
    if we excluded the growth in the satellite budget, the rest of
    NOAA would be flat.
        Ocean and atmospheric research is cut 4 percent, and
    education is cut 51 percent at NOAA. We'll talk more about
    NOAA.
        In the area of accountability, I'm going to get right to
    what I call the red zone issues--census. In terms of management
    challenges, we've got to take a look at the 2010 census. The
    budget for the Census Bureau grows by 112 percent, to $2.6
    billion--it's $1 billion more than the omnibus level, but we're
    concerned that with these handheld technologies, where there
    seems to be challenges in their workability. We're concerned
    that billion could go to boondoggle, rather than achieving the
    census.
        Two years ago, laptop computers got lost, there are privacy
    and security issues, and now these handheld computers. So, we
    think Census has some significant management challenges.
        Then we come to our favorite NOAA satellite program,
    satellites are critical to warning about the weather, and
    observing the changes in the Earth's climate. In other words,
    satellites help save lives and save the planet.
        Senator Shelby worked with me to include a provision in the
    2008 omnibus to give us early warning about satellite costs. We
    want to know how the Department, then, is doing that, to be
    sure we implement the Nunn-McCurdy framework.
        And last and not at all least, is the Patent Office. We
    continue to be concerned about the backlog and the waiting
    times, which continue to worsen. It now takes over 27 months
    for the Patents Office to issue a patent. And the backlog now
    is over 1 million.
        This is unacceptable. We've made progress, we've worked
    very tirelessly on management reform, we've increased the
    budget, it's 27 percent more than what it was in 2005, but we
    continue to have a backlog. More needs to be done to reverse
    this, and we look forward to your ideas.
        Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing you, and I now
    turn to Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. We have worked extremely well during our
    tenure here, sharing many of the same goals and expectations of
    the agencies that we oversee, including the Department of
    Commerce.
        I'm pleased to serve beside her, and once again, doing what
    is shaping up to be another tight fiscal year.
        I look forward to learning about how the 2009 budget
    request will improve the Department of Commerce's mission.
    Overall, the Department's budget request for 2009 is $8.18
    billion, an increase of $1.32 billion from the funding level
    providing into 2008 omnibus appropriations bill.
        The Nation relies heavily on the Department of Commerce to
    maintain America's competitiveness within markets around the
    world.
        The Department works hard to provide avenues to promote the
    products and services of U.S. businesses, and then helps to
    level the playing field through expanding, strengthening, and
    enforcing our international trade agreements.
        Through the Department of Commerce programs, our country is
    able to maintain high technical standards, as well as staying
    on the cutting edge of scientific research, all of which are
    fundamental to our Nation's leadership in the global market.
        I'm pleased to see that the American Competitiveness
    Initiative, or ACI, continues to receive support from the
    administration, through the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology's budget request. The ACI will maintain the
    competitive edge that our Nation expects in the world economy
    through research and innovation, focusing on the ingenuity of
    our people, and tying our capabilities to policies that would
    keep us at the forefront of scientific and technical
    advancement for generations to come.
        The strength of America's economy rests on our ability to
    innovate, and use the latest technology to solve the problems
    of today, and preserve our economic and scientific leadership
    in the future. With the recent downturn in the economy, it's
    more important than ever that we do all we can to push the
    envelope in innovation and science to maintain our competitive
    edge in the world.
        I believe that Chairwoman Mikulski and I will work together
    to do all we can to ensure that science and technology are
    funded at the highest levels in our bill.
        If we can not train more engineers and doctoral students,
    America will fall behind the rest of the world. If we don't
    make a relatively small investment now, make no mistake about
    it--playing catch-up with the rest of the world will cost us
    fiscally and strategically.
        The operations of both NIST and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, function to keep the
    Nation competitive, and inspire the next generation of
    scientists and researchers. We must find better ways to use
    NOAA's education programs to capture the imagination of our
    children, to encourage them to pursue careers in science and
    research.
        Secretary, as we work to evaluate the number of scientists
    and engineers, I believe we also need to have the high-tech
    jobs of the future ready for them through our investment in
    transformative research in our Nation's businesses. The
    Technology Innovation Program at NIST will work to create the
    high-paying, technical jobs that drive our economy now, and are
    essential to our future.
        The $4.1 billion budget request for NOAA--a 5 percent
    increased over 2008 enacted level--is a pleasant surprise.
    However, none of the significant increases included in this
    request are directed at the Gulf of Mexico.
        The gulf coast still lacks the infrastructure, research and
    support from NOAA that other regions of the country have
    perpetually received. Since the recent rash of devastating
    hurricanes, nearly all infrastructure improvements for fish,
    severe weather forecasting, and research in the gulf, have been
    borne solely by the members of this subcommittee, with little
    or no assistance from NOAA headquarters.
        While I have been a big proponent of NOAA and worked with
    the Chairwoman to protect them from significant cuts that other
    agencies were forced to absorb in last year's conference
    negotiations, I can no longer turn a blind eye toward the
    continual lack of commitment by NOAA to the gulf coast.
    Therefore, I may not be able to protect NOAA at the expense of
    other agencies and programs this year.
        Mr. Secretary, I'm troubled by the large number of
    expensive technology procurement failures at the Department. I
    understand that the Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellite Program is back on track, but I'm disappointed that a
    $6.2 billion program, originally intended for four satellites
    has ballooned into a $7 billion program for only two
    satellites.
        I understand their importance for weather and research, but
    I have trouble understanding the benefits, when the taxpayer is
    stuck paying $800 million more than the original estimate for
    one-half the product, and a delivery date 3 years later.
        Further, the national polar orbiting operational
    environmental satellite system (NPOESS) has mushroomed from a
    $6 billion estimate to more than a $12 billion, with less
    functionality, and a delivery date 4 years later. I believe
    this is inexcusable.
        Since 1790, and every 10 years thereafter, this country
    undertakes a constitutionally mandated effort to count its
    population. Planning for the next decennial census begins
    almost immediately after the previous one has been completed.
    So far, it's taken 8 years and counting, merely to implement a
    plan to re-engineer the 2010 census.
        The Census Bureau's new technology initiative--acquiring
    and using handheld data collection devices--has been promising
    to bring the census into the 21st century, with improved
    accuracy, and reduced cost. It has been brought to my
    attention, at the committee level, that as the census is about
    to enter a crucial point in this technological transition, the
    Department has grave concerns about the Census' ability to
    manage and to deploy the handheld devices, and associated data
    collection necessary to carry out a successful 2010 census.
        I'm troubled that when my staff met with senior officials
    late last year, they were told that the $600 million contract
    for the handheld devices was on schedule and that there were no
    major concerns.
        A few weeks later, the Census submitted more than 400
    necessary changes to the handheld device contractor--400. In
    2005, the inspector general reported that the Census had
    insufficiently defined requirements for the data collection and
    handheld devices. The inability to define the requirements,
    combined with the 400 last minute changes, means that no one
    knew what they were asking the contractor to build to begin
    with, and yet a contract for more--yes, more--than $500 million
    was signed by the Commerce Department.
        The inspector general was right in his take on the Census
    Bureau, I regret it took 3 years to come to the realization,
    they have a problem. While I have been assured that you have a
    plan to bring this situation under control, Mr. Secretary, I
    have to wonder if any of the managers who told subcommittee
    staff the handheld contracts were still on track, are still
    involved in this program today. How much more of the taxpayers'
    money will be squandered before someone is held accountable for
    what is supposed to be a less expensive and more efficient
    Census? While I understand and support the importance of
    technology to assist the components of the Department, I cannot
    support unlimited, and unchecked resources.
        I believe it's imperative that you, as the Secretary of
    Commerce, proceed with caution to ensure that the Department
    does not make the same, blatant mistakes again. We expect
    results, and working with Senator Mikulski, we will do
    everything that we can to ensure success.
        Thank you for appearing with us today.
        Senator Mikulski. Colleagues, I'm now going to turn to
    Secretary Gutierrez. There's a vote at 10:55 a.m. What I offer
    as a way of proceeding is the Secretary presents his testimony,
    then I'll be the wrap up questioner. Because if we have votes,
    I'll be more than willing to come back. I know--and I'll turn
    to you two first. Does this sound like a good way to go?
        Senator Stevens. Well, I'd just ask unanimous consent that
    my opening statement be put in the record, and my questions be
    submitted.
        Senator Mikulski. Absolutely, yes.
        Senator Stevens. I'm managing one of the bills on the
    floor, so I really can't--I'm just here to pay my respects to
    the Secretary.
        Senator Mikulski. Absolutely.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens

        Secretary Gutierrez, we welcome you before the subcommittee
    to discuss the fiscal year 2009 budget for the U.S. Department
    of Commerce. I commend the Department's efforts in the past
    year to enhance our nation's competitiveness, support our
    public and private sectors with reliable data, better
    understand our planet's weather and climate, and manage and
    protect our marine resources.
        We look forward to working with you to address the
    important issues that face us in the coming year.
        The work of your Department continues to be critical to the
    economic, social, and environmental health of my State.
        Your commitment to Arctic science is of great importance to
    Alaska, where the impacts of climate change will occur first
    and be the most pronounced. The sustainability of our fisheries
    depends on NOAA research and management efforts. Given our
    inclement weather, vast coastline, commercial fishing
    activities, and dependence on aviation, Alaskans rely heavily
    on NOAA for weather forecasting and storm warnings. EDA grants
    stimulate economic growth in distressed Alaskan communities.
    Those are just a few examples.
        Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing today about your
    priorities in the current budget request.

        Senator Mikulski. And if there is a question you would like
    to ask orally, if your staff will give it to us, we'll be sure
    to ensure that.
        Okay, Secretary Gutierrez?

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ

        Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator
    Shelby, and members of the subcommittee. I'm very pleased to
    present the--President Bush's 2009 budget request for the
    Department of Commerce, and with your permission, I'd like to
    make a brief oral statement and submit my written testimony for
    the record.
        The Department of Commerce is charged with promoting
    economic growth, competitiveness and opportunity for the
    American people. This request for $8.2 billion is a careful,
    and fiscally responsible budget that reflect the commitment to
    fulfilling the charge, and to maintaining U.S. leadership in
    today's global economy.
        I'd like to highlight some of the key items in the budget.
    For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $4.1
    billion is requested, that includes $1.2 billion to provide
    timely access to global environmental data from satellites and
    other sources, $931 million to provide critical weather
    observations, forecasts and warnings to American communities
    and families, and $759 million for stewardship of living marine
    resources and habitats, including a $32 million increase to
    directly support implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    reauthorization.
        The funding requests for Economics and Statistics
    Administration (ESA) headquarters and the Bureau of Economic
    Analysis which produces the Gross Domestic Product and other
    vital economic data is $91 million.
        For the International Trade Administration (ITA) which
    supports U.S. commercial interests at home and abroad, the
    request is $420 million. U.S. exports totaled a record $1.6
    trillion in 2007, and free trade agreements are leveling the
    playing field, and helping American exporters access new
    markets.
        Free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South
    Korea are now pending in Congress. Colombia is priority, it's a
    democracy and staunch ally of the United States, and we need to
    stand by Colombia in the cause of freedom, while at the same
    time creating new opportunities for U.S. exporters.
        The ITA budget request includes a $3.8 million increase for
    enforcement and countervailing duty law with respect to China
    and other non-market economies.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology request
    of $638 million will keep America on the leading edge of
    scientific and technological advances. It puts us back on track
    to double the funding for NIST basic research in the core
    physical sciences by 2016, a major goal of the President's
    American competitiveness initiative.
        As you know, the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration is administering the digital
    television transition and public safety fund, including the TV
    converter box coupon program.
        As with any budget, tough decisions were made. The Economic
    Development Administration (EDA) budget request for 2009 is
    $133 million. For the Census Bureau, which is part of the
    Economics and Statistics Administration, $2.6 billion is
    requested. This includes a program increase of $1.3 billion, to
    fund the 2010 decennial census, and continue the American
    community survey.
        Yesterday I testified before the Senate Homeland Security
    and Government Affairs Committee on how the Department is
    working to address some of the challenges currently facing the
    2010 census.
        The 2010 census is one of the highest priorities and most
    important responsibilities of the Commerce Department, however,
    I should say the field data collection automation, which we
    also know as FDCA, is experiencing significant schedule,
    performance, and cost issues. This is unacceptable, as I know
    it's unacceptable to the subcommittee.
        Concerns about the FDCA program grew over time, and we're
    taking several steps to address the situation. Following his
    confirmation in January, new Census Director Murdock began a
    top to bottom review of all components of the 2010 census. On
    February 6, he launched a 2010 census FDCA risk reduction task
    force, which is headed by Bill Barron, a former Deputy Director
    and Acting Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.
        As a result of the ongoing work of the task force, we are
    exploring four options. Option one is to continue with the
    Harris Corporation's original project plan, simultaneously
    evaluating the development of a paper-based backup plan. So,
    option one, essentially, is to continue with the baseline
    option.
        Option two is to shift everything but address canvassing
    back to Census Bureau, including the operational control
    system, and field infrastructure. Non-response follow up would
    then be paper based under that option.
        Option three would move non-response follow up and field
    operations infrastructure to Census with Harris developing the
    operational control system and the address canvassing.
        Option four would shift non-response follow up back to
    Census as paper based, while Harris would handle the
    operational control system, and field operations
    infrastructure, as well as address canvassing.
        So, each option, essentially, has a variance on how much
    Harris handles, and how much we send back to the Census Bureau,
    to be able to achieve the census.
        Yesterday, I announced that I am forming a panel of outside
    experts to review these actions, and other potentially serious
    problems with certain aspects of the 2010 census, and to
    provide recommendations to assure a fully successful census.
    The panel will augment the ongoing Census Bureau review of the
    overall 2010 census operations, regarding field data collection
    automation, or FDCA, especially the private contractors
    technological infrastructure support of the FDCA contract, and
    management practices.
        I am personally very involved in bringing key issues to the
    surface, and developing a way forward. The American people
    expect and deserve a timely and accurate decennial census, and
    the Department and I will not rest until they have it. So, it
    is our goal, not only to have a good census, but we'd like to
    shoot for having the best census.
        Madam Chairman, the President's fiscal year 2009 budget for
    the Department of Commerce will enable the Department to
    continue to provide vital statistics, strengthen the
    stewardship of living marine resources, support the innovative
    and entrepreneurial spirit of America, and increase our
    competitiveness in the global marketplace.
        This is the last time it will be my privilege to present to
    the Senate Appropriations subcommittee President Bush's budget
    proposal for the Department of Commerce, I want to thank the
    members for your consideration, for your courtesy over the last
    several years. I want to thank you for your support of vital
    Commerce programs that have served the Nation, the business
    community, the people of this great country, and while this is
    my last hearing, I hope to continue working with you over the
    next year.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, thank you very much, and I'd be glad to take questions
    or comments.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of 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 $8.2 billion in
    discretionary funds reflects a balance between the Administration's
    commitment to the Department's mission 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 2009 budget request of $4.1 billion for
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reflects the
    Administration's commitment to environmental stewardship. It represents
    an increase of $214 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    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.
        The request continues support for development and acquisition of
    the next-generation Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
    (GOES-R), with an increase of $242 million as we enter the main
    procurement phase for the spacecraft and the ground control system.
    There is also a $32 million increase to continue improving fishery
    management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act that was reauthorized in
    2006, and a $40 million increase to continue construction of the
    Pacific Region Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. The budget includes new
    requests of $74 million to restore climate sensors that were
    demanifested during the Nunn-McCurdy review of the tri-agency National
    Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
    Program, and $12 million to replace the Satellite Command and Data
    Acquisition station in Fairbanks, Alaska.
        The Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) promotes the
    understanding of the U.S. economy and its competitive position. ESA's
    Census Bureau is the leading source of quality data regarding the
    Nation's population and economy, and the President's fiscal year 2009
    budget requests $2.6 billion in discretionary funds for the Census
    Bureau. This includes a program increase of $8.1 million to provide
    policymakers, business leaders, and the American public with
    comprehensive and timely data on the service economy, which now
    accounts for 55 percent of economic activity.
        The largest increase requested, for both the Census Bureau and the
    Department, is $1.3 billion for the 2010 Decennial Census to fund
    critical operations and preparations for 2010, improve accuracy of map
    features, and continue the American Community Survey on an ongoing
    basis. As you are aware, the Census Bureau is currently experiencing
    significant challenges in the management of the Field Data Collection
    Automation (FDCA) project for the 2010 Census. I can assure you that
    not only the Census Bureau but the Office of the Secretary is devoting
    all of the resources at our disposal to resolve the IT management
    issues with FDCA and develop a successful way forward. We will keep you
    informed of our progress.
        ESA's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) promotes understanding of
    the Nation's economic condition by providing policy makers, business
    leaders, households, and individuals with essential economic data. This
    data includes the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as well as other
    regional, national, international, and industry-specific information.
    The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $91 million for ESA
    Headquarters and BEA. This request includes an increase of $5.7 million
    to improve measurement of the health care sector and to incorporate the
    impact of research & development investments into the GDP.
        The International Trade Administration (ITA) supports U.S.
    commercial interests at home and abroad by promoting trade and
    investment, ensuring fair trade and compliance with domestic and
    international trade laws and agreements and strengthening the
    competitiveness of American industries and workers. The President's
    fiscal year 2009 budget requests $420 million for ITA. This request
    includes an increase of $3.8 million for enforcement of the
    Countervailing Duty Law with China and other non-market economies, as
    well as a decrease of $3.0 million to reflect streamlining of Trade
    Promotion and domestic U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service offices. In
    the future, as in the past, our long-term economic growth will also be
    enhanced by supporting international trade, by opening world markets to
    U.S. goods and services and by keeping our markets open. Congress can
    help create jobs and economic opportunity by passing the pending Free
    Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.
        The Economic Development Administration (EDA) assists states,
    regions, and communities in promoting a favorable business environment
    through capacity building, planning, infrastructure investments,
    research grants, and strategic initiatives. The President's fiscal year
    2009 budget requests $133 million for EDA. The request reduces funding
    for the Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP) by $149 million
    in order to support other Administration priorities.
        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 2009 budget requests $84 million to
    enable BIS to effectively carry out this mission. The request includes
    $2.4 million in program increases to upgrade export enforcement and to
    ensure compliance through validating end-users in foreign countries.
        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 2009 budget requests $29 million to enable
    MBDA to continue its activities to increase access to the marketplace
    and financing for Minority Business Enterprises.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request of $638 million for
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will advance
    measurement science, standards, and technology. The request includes
    increases of $71 million for research initiatives at NIST Laboratories
    and National Research Facilities, and $62 million for Construction and
    Major Renovations as part of the President's 10-year American
    Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). This will put us back on track to
    double the funding for NIST basic research in the core physical
    sciences and engineering by 2016, to ensure continued U.S. leadership
    in this area, a major goal of ACI.
        The request includes $4 million to transition Hollings
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers to a self-supporting basis,
    and does not include new funding for the Technology Innovation Program
    (successor to the Advanced Technology Program).
        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.
        The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA) develops telecommunications and information policy, manages the
    Federal radio spectrum, and performs telecommunications research,
    engineering, and planning. A key responsibility for NTIA is
    administration of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety
    Fund (DTTPSF). During fiscal year 2009, NTIA estimates obligating $592
    million from the DTTPSF to support several one-time programs created by
    the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, most notably $472 million for the
    Digital-to-Analog Television Converter Box Program. The other $120
    million in DTTPSF obligations includes $50 million to implement a
    national tsunami warning system and $60 million to assist low power
    television stations in upgrading their signals from analog to digital
    formats. In addition, NTIA will continue working with the Department of
    Homeland Security to implement the Public Safety Interoperable
    Communications grant program. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget
    request of $19 million in discretionary budget authority for NTIA
    includes a reduction of $18 million to terminate further grants for
    Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning, and Construction.
        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 and
    trademarks, the President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $2.1
    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.
    Consistent with prior years, the Administration proposes to fund the
    USPTO budget exclusively through offsetting fee collections. Fee
    collections for fiscal year 2009 are projected to cover the proposed
    increases.
        Departmental Management (DM) funds the Offices of the Secretary,
    Deputy Secretary, and their support staff. Staffs in these offices
    develop and implement policy, administer internal operations, and serve
    as primary liaison to other executive branch agencies, Congress, and
    private sector entities. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget
    requests $20.8 million in discretionary appropriations for DM, which
    includes a $48.6 million rescission from the Emergency Steel Guaranteed
    Loan Program. Proposed increases include $7.1 million to upgrade IT
    security and ensure mission essential communications, and $3.6 million
    for blast mitigation windows and other renovations to the 76-year-old
    Herbert C. Hoover Building.
        The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) strives to promote
    economy and efficiency, and detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse
    in Departmental programs and operations. The President's fiscal year
    2009 budget requests $24.8 million to enable the OIG to continue to
    effectively meet these mandates. Also, the budget requests $1 million
    to improve the OIG's ability to evaluate and improve the security for
    the Department's information technology assets.
        The Department of 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. The President's fiscal year 2009 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 technological advancement and environmental stewardship.

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, thank you for a very crisp
    testimony. We want to acknowledge that Senator Jack Reed of
    Rhode Island has come.
        What we're going to do, Senator Reed--because there is a
    vote--we're going to let Senator Brownback go first, we'll come
    to you, Shelby and I--Senator Shelby and I will be the wrap up.
        So, we can keep it crisp?

                         TRADE DISPUTE WITH EADS AIRBUS

        Senator Brownback. We'll try to keep it crisp.
        Secretary, thank you for being here, I appreciate that. And
    in the notion of crispness, then I want to focus you on the
    trade dispute we have with Airbus in the case that's supposed
    to be reported out, I understand, a ruling on it in April.
        Just to--and you know this case very well, it's been our
    ongoing subsidy fight with EADS Airbus, that's--I was in Bush
    One in the trade field, and we were fighting with Airbus then.
    And we're still fighting with them.
        But, as you know, European governments have subsidized EADS
    Airbus, we contend--our government, U.S. Government--$15
    billion in launch aid, financing--including $5 billion on the
    A-330, 340 program, which is $5 billion on launch aid, just for
    that particular program.
        The A-330, 340 program is the largest recipient of European
    government support, support from French, German, Spanish,
    British. We initiated a trade dispute against them, and I
    understand that is potentially going to report out in April.
        If we win that, we will be entitled to retaliatory measures
    against Airbus, is that correct, Secretary?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I believe that's one of the options,
    depending on--hopefully, that we will win that. We're working
    with the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and USTR,
    of course, is the lead on this, but we hope to be able to prove
    that there are launch subsidies, something that has worried us
    for a long, long time, but I can't be specific as to what we
    will be able to get back if we win.
        Senator Brownback. Is it the U.S. Government's position
    that the A-330, 340 program has received $5 billion in launch
    aid from the European governments?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I'm not sure about the exact amount,
    but we have always stated and alleged that they receive launch
    subsidies for their new products, as well as their new, large-
    body plane, and that is essentially what we are taking forward.
        Senator Brownback. And that's the U.S. Government position?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. Do you believe that European subsidies
    have created an unfair playing field for U.S. companies,
    competing against EADS Airbus?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I believe that they have made Airbus
    able to compete with lower prices versus Boeing, because of
    these government subsidies that they have had.
        Senator Brownback. I'm sorry, go ahead.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I just think it says a lot about
    Boeing that Boeing has been able to compete and win and gain
    market share, in spite of competing with these subsidies.
        Senator Brownback. You're concerned about the rapid
    increase in the European share of the U.S. commercial aviation
    market over the past two, three decades?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. And to the extent that these are
    achieved, because of the benefit of subsidies, then absolutely.
    We want to be able to compete on a fair playing field, and we
    believe they do have the benefit of these subsidies.
        Senator Brownback. And you believe the current playing
    field is not fair for U.S. commercial aviation?
        Secretary Gutierrez. If we can prove that these subsidies
    are what we say they are, then it is not. Because they are
    receiving launch subsidies from their government, they're not
    projecting the total cost of the plane when they have to price
    to sell that plane.
        Senator Brownback. Are there other obstacles as well that
    U.S. companies face in competition with the subsidized European
    firm of EADS, that owns 80 percent of Airbus, in addition to
    the direct subsidy of the--what we suggest is $5 billion in
    launch aid, just for the A-330, and then $15 billion overall in
    launch aid in financing for their whole fleet of planes?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Our major concern has been launch
    subsidies. Aside from that, we know that it's a very
    competitive firm, and we have some very competitive firms, and
    we're constantly competing for major contracts--which we don't
    mind--but we just want our company to be playing on a level
    playing field. And if they are receiving this level of launch
    subsidy for these large planes, then they are not reflecting
    the full cost in their price, which gives them an artificial
    advantage.
        Senator Brownback. And you're aware that the current
    contract that was just let for the Northrop Grumman uses the A-
    330 base plane, which we are contending is a heavily subsidized
    plane that's in its start?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.

                    RETALIATORY MEASURES AGAINST EADS AIRBUS

        Senator Brownback. What retaliatory measures might we use,
    if we win this case against EADS Airbus? What's possible?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I'd like to be able to get back to you
    on that, Senator Brownback. These are, obviously, legal
    questions. I don't want to preempt anything that USTR may want
    to state, but if you'd like, I'd be glad to go back, look at
    the different options we have, assuming we win, and get those
    to you. And I don't think there would be a problem in that, I
    don't think USTR would have a problem with that, but I do want
    to respect their lead role in this case.
        [The information follows:]

           Retaliatory Measures Following Ruling in EADS Airbus Case

        The WTO has not yet made its ruling in this dispute, so it
    would be premature to speculate on possible retaliation.
    However, if the WTO rules in favor of the U.S. complaint, we
    would hope that the EC would comply with that ruling or reach a
    mutually acceptable agreement. Should we not reach an
    acceptable outcome and assuming that the WTO dispute settlement
    body authorizes retaliation, there remain U.S. statutory
    procedures that require consultation and public notice and
    comment as to the particular retaliatory countermeasures to be
    adopted. Only after such consultations could we have a sense of
    what measures might be taken.

        Senator Brownback. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. You were crisp.
        Senator Brownback. Trying to.
        Senator Mikulski. You raised excellent points.
        Senator Reed.

                      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and
    Senator Shelby.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. I, in my
    experience over 18 years now, have found the Economic
    Development Administration (EDA) to be an incredibly effective
    and efficient source of support for local communities. I could
    list a number of items of support for my State.
        The most recent one, the one I am concerned about is
    support to the city of Woonsocket, Rhode Island. They had a
    levee system that, after Katrina, was declared substandard. We
    have taken steps to transfer the authority to the Corps of
    Engineers and the Corps will assume the authority, but the city
    still has the obligation for ongoing repairs and upgrades until
    the transfer is complete.
        EDA has stepped in with a lot of technical assistance, and
    the city has a grant proposal at the agency now. I personally
    want to thank, and show my appreciation of Tyrone Beach of your
    Philadelphia office and Dennis Alvord of your Washington
    office, for their assistance and their hard, hard work.
        This is an important issue, and certainly any consideration
    you could give would be appropriate, because literally, the
    city would have been bankrupted if they were forced to make
    these repairs and shoulder this responsibility ongoing.
        So, all of that is a long prelude to the question of--given
    the need we have for projects like this across the country, in
    fact the American Society of Civil Engineers have rated our
    infrastructure ``D''--why are we cutting roughly $170 million
    from the budget of an agency that is effective, efficient,
    responds to the needs of local communities in a very thoughtful
    and businesslike way, when the demands are way beyond the
    capacity of the existing budget?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Senator, I understand your point. We
    had to make, obviously, some decisions to reallocate some of
    our funds, we wanted to make sure that we got the long-term
    basic research right in NIST and we are a little bit behind our
    plan on that, so we had a 22 percent increase in NIST. Of
    course, we had the satellites, we have the census.
        The only thing I can say about EDA is that because these
    are grants, this is not a permanent cut. We have the
    flexibility to increase it and lower it, without having to
    commit to something that is long term. So, it is a 1-year cut,
    that's the way we're thinking about it, and again, it comes
    down to the tough role of having to allocate within a limited
    budget.
        Senator Reed. I appreciate the difficulties of prioritizing
    these programs, given the current budget situation, but I think
    this is one that would require a little more reflection.
        And I would also just finally point out, because I want to
    stay within my time, that it's sort of the curse, the baseline.
    Once you reduce EDA at this level, next year when you talk
    about increasing it, even a robust increase probably does not
    get it up to where it was. And I think that has to be
    considered long term.
        So, even though you see it as a 1-year cut, if this is cut
    this much, it will very difficult to replace that funding and
    get it to the level I believe it should be.
        But, thank you for your consideration, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Senator, the city you mentioned, I
    just want to make sure I get that right--Woosakah?
        Senator Reed. That's the way you say it, if you have a
    terrible Rhode Island accent, like I have, but it's actually
    Woonsocket, W-O-O-N-S-O-C-K-E-T.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Okay, thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.

                         TANKER CONTRACT TO EADS AIRBUS

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I just want to pick up on a
    point made by Senator Brownback, a little bit. You know, trade
    is important, fair trade is very important to all of us. But
    when the Air Force selects a plane, and this is at the
    Pentagon, and chooses an airframe that's made in Europe, but
    the plane will be assembled in my State of Alabama, and
    thousands and thousands of new U.S. jobs--maybe not Boeing
    jobs--will be created, I think the Air Force's top criteria is
    what's best for the warfighter.
        In this case we--have regular order, we have a process that
    Boeing will have to go through, and should go through, to
    protest this award. The Air Force concluded that the Northrop
    Grumman proposal was superior in five main categories, over the
    Boeing plane. And I think that what we need to do is buy the
    best thing for the warfighter. You know, this is not going to
    be used in commerce, it's going to be used in national
    security.
        There is a process to go through, Senator Brownback knows
    that. Assuming there is a protest, GAO will review the awarding
    of the contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS, over Boeing. I
    believe they will uphold the award, but I don't know that.
    Because I don't know, and I don't believe Congress, including
    the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Alabama, or Senator
    Mikulski, should get into the procurement business. Senator
    Warner spoke very strongly on that the other day as others
    have, too. Whether it's made in Kansas, or Alabama, or Maryland
    we better leave procurement up to the Pentagon, and not to us.
        I have several questions, and I have some for the record
    dealing with the Department of Commerce.

                         MANAGEMENT OF DECENNIAL CENSUS

        Given where we are today, Mr. Secretary, would you rate the
    Census Bureau's management of the decennial census, as
    moderately effective? Poor, or what?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Based on where we are today, I would
    have to be very convincing to say moderately effective.
        Senator Shelby. Well, you couldn't convince me to that,
    now.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I know. I'm not going to try, Senator
    Shelby. I'm disappointed.
        Senator Shelby. You've got good standing, you don't want to
    ruin that standing.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        We're in the situation today, and I will know so much more
    in 3 weeks when the task force gets back, but we are probably
    facing an overrun, and I'll know more about that. We're looking
    at different options, we may not be able to use all of the
    technology that we had hoped for.
        So, given that, and given the amount of time that it took
    the communication to work itself up the ladder, I would say I'm
    disappointed. I'm very much part of it, and I'm not separating
    myself from it, but it's been very disappointing.
        Senator Shelby. Indeed. People over at Census which came up
    with this--the handheld device, which makes sense, to some
    extent--did they know, really know, what they were doing when
    they're coming up with 400 additional changes? I mean, one or
    two, three or four--but 400? Plus the cost. That bothers us, as
    appropriators, and it should, and it should bother you, as the
    Secretary.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir.
        Well, I think that part of the problem has been the lack of
    experience in working with an outside contractor that would
    come in and do a lot of the work that Census once did. And then
    once that happens, the level of intensity of management has to
    increase and I don't think that happened. I don't think that
    happened early on.
        So, Harris would have a certain date of delivery, Census
    would have another date--it just says that people----
        Senator Shelby. Why? Why? Why?
        Secretary Gutierrez [continuing]. People weren't talking.
    They hadn't set up the management processes to ensure that an
    outsider can come in and do what Census had always done.
        So, I think this is, while it comes down to a technology
    issue, I think that's a symptom. And from my standpoint,
    Senator, what we have is a management issue, and a cultural
    issue.
        Senator Shelby. What about a software problem?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Well, we had some software problems in
    our address canvassing, which we've done. We did our dress
    rehearsal, and those, I understand are fixable. We have work to
    do with the software, but those are fixable, but as you say
    with the 400 changes that were identified, some of those are
    software. It can be done, it's just a matter of the level of
    confidence of having to do that when we're 2\1/2\ years away
    from the Decennial Census.
        Senator Shelby. Are the same people at Census that came up
    with this idea to begin with, and assured the subcommittee that
    everything was rosy--are they still over there, running this
    program?
        Secretary Gutierrez. We have a new Director.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Who's been on board for 1 month. And
    we have a fairly new Deputy Director who has been in that role
    for almost 1 year. So there were some changes that took place.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Last year.
        Senator Shelby. Secretary, can we--this Committee of
    Appropriations--dealing with Commerce, and your money--can we
    anticipate a supplemental request from you, your Department, to
    accommodate the difficult position that the Census finds itself
    in?
        Secretary Gutierrez. That's the question I will have
    answered Senator Shelby. I should have the amount of money, but
    also if it falls into 2009 and 2010. We believe that a lot of
    it will fall in 2010, and we're also going to try to find the
    money internally before we do anything. So, I wish I could be
    more specific, but I'd like to wait before responding on the
    money and the timing. And then, I'll be back to this
    subcommittee with the full plan.

                       COLOMBIA AND PANAMA SHRIMP EXPORTS

        Senator Shelby. It's a lot of money.
        Mr. Secretary, going over to NOAA, free trade and shrimp?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. If I can talk about that a minute. Has your
    Department examined Colombia and Panama's shrimp export
    activities, prior to these recent trade discussions? And, if
    so, what were your findings? If you don't know, will you get
    it?
        Senator Mikulski. Shift gears on that one.
        Senator Shelby. Yeah.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I will get back to you on that. I know
    that we--a lot of our shrimp activities are with Vietnam and
    Asia, but I will look back at Panama and Colombia.
        Senator Shelby. This would be dealing with Colombia and
    Panama's shrimp activities.
        I have a number of other questions, Madam Chairman, but I
    will submit them for the record and ask them in the timeframe
    we have.
        [The information follows:]

                     Colombia and Panama--Shrimp Activities

    U.S. Shrimp Trade with Colombia and Panama
        The Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration
    reports no anti-dumping case work on shrimp with Panama or Colombia,
    nor any outstanding or longstanding shrimp-related issues within the
    purview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
                Colombia
        In 2007, Colombia exported 2,221,646 kg of shrimp (of various
    product types) to the United States at a value of $12,877,685. That
    year, U.S. shrimp exports to Colombia amounted to 125,551 kg with a
    value of $909,424.
                Panama
        Panama exported 4,453,686 kg of various products of shrimp to the
    United States in 2007, valued at $36,644,581. In 2007, U.S. shrimp
    exports to Panama amounted to 28,474 kg, valued at $231,805.
    Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Provisions
        The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) reports
    no shrimp-related trade issues with Panama or Colombia--not before,
    during, or after the FTA negotiations with these countries.
                Market Access
        U.S. fish and fish product exports, including shrimp, will benefit
    from the pending FTAs with Colombia and Panama. Colombia's tariffs on
    high-priority U.S. fish exports such as shrimp, salmon, and sardines
    will be eliminated immediately upon entry into force of the United
    States-Colombia FTA. Currently, Colombian tariffs on U.S. fish exports
    range between 5 and 20 percent with an average of 18.9 percent.
    Similarly, Panama's tariffs on U.S. shrimp exports will be eliminated
    immediately upon entry into force of the United States-Panama FTA.
    Panama's tariffs on U.S. fish exports currently range between zero and
    15 percent with an average of 12.7 percent.
        For years prior to the launch of FTA talks with Colombia and
    Panama, the U.S. market was open to fish imports from these countries.
    The U.S. tariffs on fish and fish products average only 2 percent.
    Under the United States-Colombia FTA, most U.S. fish imports from
    Colombia will continue to receive duty-free treatment upon entry into
    force of the Agreement. Similarly, under the United States-Panama FTA,
    100 percent of U.S. fish imports from Panama will receive duty-free
    treatment immediately upon entry into force of the FTA. It is important
    to note these products, including shrimp, currently enter the U.S.
    market with little or no tariffs.

    Turtle Excluder Devices (TED) Certification
        The chief component of the U.S. sea turtle conservation program is
    a requirement that commercial shrimp boats use sea turtle excluder
    devices (TEDs) to prevent the accidental drowning of sea turtles in
    shrimp trawls. On May 1, 2007, the Department of State certified 40
    nations and one economy as meeting the requirements set by Section 609
    of Public Law 101-162 for continued importation of shrimp into the
    United States. Section 609 prohibits importation of shrimp and products
    of shrimp harvested in a manner that may adversely affect sea turtle
    species. Colombia and Panama were among the countries certified.

                                FDCA TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
        I'd like to pick up on Senator Shelby's line of questioning
    on the Census. Two points--number one, we've talked about the
    management issues, and you're a skilled manager, and we have a
    new Director of the Census in Mr. Murdock, so management is one
    thing.
        But, let's go to the technology. In this year's
    appropriation in the President's request, he's asking for,
    through you, $1 billion more. We have to make sure that $1
    billion gives us value at the end of the day. So, could you
    tell the subcommittee--what is the technological problem?
    What--I know that there are 400 changes, et cetera, but what
    doesn't work? If--think of someone knocking on the door, ``Hi,
    I'm from Census,'' and they have this technology in their hand
    and then they're asking their questions--at what point does
    this break down?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, there are two big problems. One
    is that it takes a longer amount of time to capture the
    information for one interview than what was assumed. The other
    problem is that the number of interviews that a handheld can
    absorb in a given day is a lot less than what we expected. So,
    if you go into one of these apartment buildings with a lot of
    tenants, now all of a sudden we can't do that with one
    enumerator, we'd have to do that with more than one.
        Senator Mikulski. But what is it about--the technology that
    is broken--again, pardon me, but who cares if it lasts longer?
    Is it a consequence to the battery, what, what?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I believe it's a design of the
    software. I don't think it's a capacity problem, I think it's
    just the way that the requirements were communicated. And part
    of the problem is how the requirements were communicated to the
    contractor--this is what we need, this is the capacity we need,
    this is what an enumerator does every day--there are also some
    productivity assumptions that were not valid that were put into
    the program, so that also impacts.
        Senator Mikulski. So, the handheld can't absorb what we had
    hoped that it could absorb. So, it could mean, then, if you
    don't fix the handheld, you will need more people, because it
    takes more time.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay. Then, is the handheld able to send
    it to the mother ship? I mean, is there a mother ship that
    absorbs all of this?
        Secretary Gutierrez. That's the plan. The whole idea was
    that the handheld would help us determine every single address
    in the country. We're also using global positioning satellite
    (GPS) technology this time. We'd send the questionnaires to
    those addresses, and then those households that did not
    respond, we would go back with the handheld, and all of that
    information would go back to what we call an operational
    control system, that would essentially get back to the
    enumerator with their tasks.
        Senator Mikulski. Pardon me, I'm a very plain-spoken and
    plain-thinking person. And knowing the way a census goes, there
    has to be--there will be someone who will knock on a door----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Presuming someone's at home
    and friendly and willing to answer. That in and of itself is an
    assumption--a big assumption. Because if they don't respond,
    there's usually a reason--they're old, they're poor, they could
    be hiding, they could have 15 people living in a house, some
    documented, some not.
        I mean, we've done censuses for 200 years--this is not a
    special ops operation, where we are doing a new secret thing in
    a foreign territory. It's in our country, we've been doing it
    for 200 years, and it's all been based on some form of
    interview.
        So, this is not to lay that on you, but the fact that they
    didn't understand what the hell they were being asked to do, I
    find shocking. If we are that dumb, we've got a problem in our
    country, let alone with technology. This, is again, not secret,
    not special ops.
        So, but here--they've gotten, you know, income under
    $50,000, et cetera. Then do they push a button, and it goes to
    a central facility?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. And is that part working?
        Secretary Gutierrez. That is one of the options we have, is
    to take that control system away from Harris, and put it into--
    --
        Senator Mikulski. That's your option, but is it working now
    with the Harris contract?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I'll be able to answer that in 3
    weeks.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay.
        Secretary Gutierrez. The experts are looking at it to see
    if it's capable of----
        Senator Mikulski. And the enumerators talk to the computer,
    and that's going to take longer, and a computer isn't ready to
    work as hard as the enumerator. Then the handheld talks to the
    mother ship--we're not sure it can talk the same language.
    Then, having done that, the question is, can the mother ship
    process that information?
        You're shaking your head--who are you?
        Mr. Wienecke. I work for the Secretary.
        Senator Mikulski. So, can the mother ship process it? Okay.
        Mr. Wienecke. That's what we're working through right now.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you know the answer if the mother ship
    can process the information?
        Mr. Wienecke. We're testing that.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay. Now, let's presume that's happened,
    then they have to tell the enumerator the next day what they're
    to do.
        Secretary Gutierrez. That's right.
        Senator Mikulski. Do they talk back?
        Secretary Gutierrez. They essentially give the enumerator
    their schedule and tasks, and where they have to go for the
    next day.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay.
        Secretary Gutierrez. They also calculate productivity, they
    also calculate wages.
        Senator Mikulski. So, what you're saying, though, this
    could be really a collapse.
        And colleagues, this is really serious. Again, this is the
    United States of America. We hold ourselves out to be
    technological innovators, and we can't develop technology to
    take a census where we know the process, and we've known it for
    200 years.
        So, now, let's get to the money. If we have to do handheld,
    I mean, if we go to paper--if the United States of America has
    to do a paper census, it borders on a scandal. It really does.
        Senator Shelby. Madam Chairman, could I just interject one
    thing, just follow up?
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, because I want to get to the money
    punch line.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. I just----
        Senator Mikulski. Because we're heading to something
    that's--do you realize if we have to pay for a paper census----
        Senator Shelby. I know.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Yes, go ahead, Senator.
        Senator Shelby. Just, I was just thinking of the software,
    here, and I'm a long way from being a software engineer. But, a
    census--the questions you ask during the census--I've talked to
    some software people, they said, ``That's so simple,'' you
    know, to program. I mean, because you're asking--let's assume
    you have the form, and you have to knock on the door, you know,
    and you had to fill it out, which we've done--that's not
    difficult. Is it laborious? Is it labor-intensive? It could be.
    And the software, or the handheld computer was to save money,
    be more efficient, and everything else. But, I don't think
    you're asking--whether it's Harris or whoever's doing it, the
    Commerce Department--you're not asking for a difficult software
    program.
        Senator Mikulski. Right.
        Senator Shelby. And I think the chairman's right. Thank you
    for letting me interrupt----

                      POSSIBLE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION

        Senator Mikulski. Let's get to the--so, you're going to
    have answers. But, here's where we are. Senator Shelby asked--
    as he does, such excellent focused and targeted questions--as
    he said, are you prepared to ask for money in a supplemental?
    And, as I understand your response is, ``Oh, we will turn to
    the Department first.''
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, I think I should say that----
        Senator Mikulski. Can I just give you a head's up?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. The supplemental appropriations will be
    before the Senate in mid-April. So, when you have your answers,
    we can't wait to know--we only get one crack at the
    supplemental. And this Appropriations Committee cannot absorb
    the fix, even if we get a robust allocation, because of all of
    our other compelling needs and very important agencies across--
    remember, we not only have Commerce, we have Justice, where
    local law enforcement has been drastically cut, we're
    concerned--we could go on. So, we have to, if there--if you--I
    don't know where you're going to get the money. Because what we
    passed for the omnibus, was pretty lean. We scrubbed this
    pretty well.
        So, what we're saying, Mr. Secretary is, that whatever is
    the fix that is required, we would respectfully recommend that
    it be in the President's supplemental. I mean, we really do
    need a plan by, I would say, April 10. Because we'll be on the
    floor.
        Secretary Gutierrez. And we should have a plan, and numbers
    before that time, late March--and I will bring it to you as
    soon as we have it.
        Senator Mikulski. Fine, but we need, not only a plan, but
    we need a method----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. For paying for the plan.
        But, we have a lot of confidence in your management
    ability.

                            NPOESS SATELLITE PROGRAM

        Let's go, then, to NOAA satellites. As I understand it, in
    terms of the famous NPOESS program, which is polar satellites,
    which are so important to giving us information about weather
    and climate, that there's--in addition to the cost overruns,
    that there is also another technological problem that could
    exacerbate the overruns.
        We understand that there is a main sensor, known as VIIRS,
    that's supposed to take a picture of the ocean color--now, why
    is that important? The ocean color tells us the temperature,
    which then gives us important information on climate change and
    weather. But that--what it's going to take a picture of is now
    blurry.
        You know, I went through that--the Hubble telescope over 20
    years ago, Senator Shelby was very aware of that--you know, we
    can't put a satellite up and then have it need a contact--its
    sensor needs a contact lens.
        So, our question is, oh my God, do we have to then fix the
    sensor, while we're already in cost overruns?
        Secretary Gutierrez. We----
        Senator Mikulski. Are you aware of this problem?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. The assumption at this point, is
    that sensor will delay that part of the project by 8 months. We
    have not added 8 months to the end completion date. So, the
    VIIRS is 8 months off schedule, but the assumption is that we
    will be able to get back on schedule for the full NPOESS. So,
    we're still saying NPOESS will be launched in 2013. But that
    VIIRS sensor is 8 months behind schedule.
        Senator Mikulski. But, even on schedule, will it be able to
    see and do the job that it's supposed to do? Or is that another
    technological fix that requires, again, more money?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I don't know that, and I have not
    heard that. I have not heard that there will be another overrun
    on that part of it.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, what Senator Shelby
    and I would like to do is submit our concerns about this in
    writing, because after we get it on track, and they deliver it,
    if we have a sensor with a blurry vision, and the whole point
    of it is that it's looking from the sky at our oceans, which
    gives us very important predictability, and like, his questions
    about shrimp, I'm asking about rockets----
        Secretary Gutierrez. The quality should be a constant,
    and----
        Senator Mikulski. Yeah, it should be.
        Secretary Gutierrez [continuing]. At this point, is----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, right now, we hear it's blurry. We
    hear it's blurry.

                            GOES-R SATELLITE PROGRAM

        Let's ask--let me go to GOES-R, and--which is another
    satellite program. Our question will be--what assurances can we
    give the subcommittee that we're not going to run into the same
    cost overruns with GOES-R as we did with NPOESS?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Well, and I'll be very up front here,
    we've gone from $6.9 billion to $7.6 billion and I believe you
    brought that up a little while ago. We are, today, $500 million
    away from having to trigger a Nunn-McCurdy-like process. I have
    been told that doesn't look like it's in the cards--one of the
    reasons that we have this $800 million increase is because we
    have mitigation plans, we have been very conservative, we have
    ensured that we're looking at the downside risk, but I just
    want the subcommittee to know that we've got to track this very
    closely, because we are $500 million away from hitting that 20
    percent mark. So GOES-R is clearly the big priority right now.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, that really gives us pause,
    because--first of all, there seems to be a consistent pattern
    of cost overruns in the NOAA satellite program. That's number
    one.
        Number two, that along with the cost overruns is then once
    we pay for it, do we get value for the dollar? The so-called,
    blurry-eyed sensor?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Right.
        Senator Mikulski. I have a real problem with our satellite
    programs across our Government. Whether it's in the classified
    area, or in others--we just don't seem to be able to get our
    satellites up on time, on budget, and then meeting what the
    expectations and criteria.
        So, here's where we are. What I would like--right now, the
    census is a crisis. We've got to get it solved, and we've got
    to get the payment for it within the supplemental. We ask you
    to please focus on that.

                   MANAGEMENT REFORMS FOR SATELLITE PROGRAMS

        But we ask you to take a look now, also, at the NOAA
    satellite program, and give us a path forward, in terms of what
    you think will be the management reforms necessary in the--in
    this. One, so we can keep it on track for this year's
    appropriations, but at the same time, what this will mean for
    the incoming NOAA Administrator. Because we can't just be left
    holding the bag, and America will lose interest. People with
    scientists have their self on the line.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I'd be glad to do that, Madam
    Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

                  Management Reforms in NOAA Satellite Program

        Within the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration operates and manages two major environmental
    satellite programs: the Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellites (GOES) in geosynchronous orbit above the equator, and the
    Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) which
    provide global coverage in a low earth orbit.
        Following the Nunn-McCurdy certification of NOAA's next-generation
    polar-orbiting system--the National Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)--the Department and NOAA have
    strengthened the management, oversight, and systems engineering
    processes of its satellite systems acquisitions. These changes will
    ensure that NOAA does not repeat the NPOESS mistakes in the development
    of the next generation Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellite series (GOES-R). These changes include:
      --Robust Risk Reduction in instrument acquisition processes. Risk
            reduction in these processes requires careful management and
            engineering attention. Both GOES-R and NPOESS are aggressively
            managing instrument acquisition to mitigate the risk to the
            entire program.
      --Technical Teaming with NASA to implement proven NASA space
            acquisition processes in Department of Commerce and NOAA
            acquisition strategies. For GOES-R, this approach is documented
            in a GOES-R Management Control Plan (MCP) which allows the
            GOES-R program access to the expertise and experience of both
            NOAA and NASA, their support contractors, and of the best of
            each agency's acquisition processes to ensure active and in-
            depth oversight of the development contractors. For NPOESS,
            NOAA has teamed with the Air Force and NASA with activities
            guided by a Memorandum of Agreement among the Department of
            Commerce, Department of Defense, and NASA which is implemented
            by a series of management, acquisition, and funding
            arrangements.
      --Regular Management Oversight and Reporting by the satellite
            programs to senior management officials. The GOES-R program
            reports to the Department of Commerce and NOAA executive
            management, and NASA engineering teams through NASA and NOAA
            Program Management Councils (PMC). The NPOESS programs reports
            to the NPOESS Executive Committee (EXCOM) which is comprised of
            senior representatives from NOAA, NASA, and the Air Force that
            provides programmatic and management oversight and guidance.
            The NPOESS program also reports monthly to the NOAA PMC.
      --Realistic Cost Estimating and Budgeting that vets the Government
            cost estimates by independent experts to ensure that adequate
            resources are applied to areas of high risk. This means budget
            requests will more likely cover expected costs without
            requiring additional budget allocations to deal with unforeseen
            issues.
      --Program Control and Congressional Oversight is ongoing with annual
            program reports for both the GOES-R and NPOESS and quarterly
            reporting of program status to Congress.
      --Management of Contractors using Incentive Fee Structure to ensure
            the Government utilizes a full range of incentive and
            performance management approaches to facilitate contractor
            management.
      --Independent Reviews by Experienced Space Acquisition Experts such
            as the Independent Review Team (IRT) to provide NOAA and the
            Department of Commerce with unvarnished opinions of the
            program's readiness at key decision points.
      --Recruitment of Experienced Program Managers and Program Executives
            to implement internal controls, to improve insight into
            emerging cost, schedule, and technical issues and exercise
            stronger management control on the release of management
            reserve and changes to the estimate at completion. For the
            GOES-R and NPOESS programs, seasoned and experienced Senior
            Executives have been placed in lead management positions. For
            the NPOESS Program, in addition to the System Program Director
            who is involved in day-to-day activities of managing the system
            acquisition, a Program Executive Officer position was
            established to provide high level monitoring of the program and
            contractor performance.

        Senator Mikulski. We note that the vote has started, has
    the second bell occurred?
        Senator Brownback. Madam Chairwoman, could I ask one other
    question----
        Senator Mikulski. On what topic?
        Senator Brownback. On the----
        Senator Mikulski. I have questions related to the Patent--
    is it on the satellites?
        Senator Brownback. No, it's on the subsidization, but I
    just wanted to ask----

                                 PATENT BACKLOG

        Senator Mikulski. I'd like to finish my patent question.
        Senator Brownback. Okay.
        Senator Mikulski. We have over a 1 million case backlog.
    There is a persistent pattern in our Patent Office with these
    issues. We have given them more money, we have given them more
    flexibility, but at the end of the day, our innovators and our
    inventors--be they big companies or those start-up companies
    that make America great, feel they're standing in line. Could
    you share with us, where you think we should be going forward?
    Is it a money problem? Are we doing our part? What is the
    problem, here?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Where we are today, essentially, Madam
    Chairman, it is like, we are on a treadmill and we're trying to
    catch up. The number of applications is increasing, and each
    application is more complex than it was 10 or 20 years ago. So,
    we're adding 1,200 people every year, and our initial pendancy,
    the first time we get back to people, is up to 25 months. Our
    final pendancy, when we finally get back with a patent, is over
    30 months. So, the number of people we're adding is not enough
    to keep up with the applications and the complexity.
        I think we need to come up with different process
    solutions, other than just adding more people. One day we're
    going to have 500,000 people, and we're still not going to be
    caught up.
        So, one of those things we're looking at, and this is where
    we'd like to go to the patent bill, we need some help on this,
    is we'd like to be able to offer applicants that, if they do
    more of the work themselves, that we will guarantee we will get
    back to them in 12 months. But that will essentially take some
    of the work that we're doing--having to do quality reviews and
    sending the application back, and asking for more information--
    if they do the work themselves, we would guarantee a speedier
    response. That's a big solution.
        We're also looking at some workplace methods, flexible
    workplace, working from home. We're also looking at the
    flexibility of having quotas on a quarterly basis, instead of
    on a daily basis, so that people can be more empowered to
    manage their time and their priorities.
        So, I think we need to look at the process and a different
    way of thinking about this than simply adding more people every
    year. By 2013, we would have added 8,000 more people.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, this is really--again, we're almost
    at a breaking point, here. With 1 million patents pending. And
    at this breaking point, we've added more money--I won't repeat
    myself--the part you've said we have to look at the patent
    bill, that's beyond the scope of this subcommittee.
        But, in terms of the personnel reforms, that's not beyond
    the scope of this subcommittee, and I think we need to look at
    how do we retain the people we recruit, because of just the
    knowledge factor--they walk out, go to the private sector, et
    cetera, it's a big loss. And it takes at least 2 years for them
    to really know how to get--do the job in the way they do.
    Because experience counts.
        We really need from you, this year, what we're going to do
    here, whether it's flexibility on work hours, or all of these
    other creative things, because we're really frustrated, the
    Judiciary Committee is really frustrated, but America--the
    private sector is.
        I'll just stop here, because in the report on our
    innovation, from the National Academy of Science, ``Rising
    Above the Gathering Storm, Where We're Falling Behind'', they
    said one of the key things in an innovation-friendly Government
    is the Patent Office, which enables us to, not only take our
    brilliant inventions that are being done, but to really make
    sure that we protect them against our intellectual property
    being robbed.
        So, this is really, I mean, these are really three big
    issues we've laid out here--the census, which is a crisis, the
    satellites, which are bordering on a crisis, and then this
    whole other issue with patents, that I believe stifles our
    ability to turn our innovations into products that could be
    sold around the world.
        Secretary Gutierrez. We're also looking at sharing work
    with some other Patent Offices in international countries where
    it makes some sense.
        Madam Chairman, on the satellites, I offered up this notion
    that we are $500 million away--I've asked that question
    internally, I was told that we won't see that, because we've
    had mitigation costs, and we've been very careful about this
    increase to $7.7 billion. But, I just want you to know what I
    know----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we've been told things before. We
    were told, from the Census, ``Oh, don't worry about it.'' We've
    been told, ``Oh, gee, the satellites,'' there's three different
    agencies, you know, we've been told a lot of things, and we're
    now acting like Missouri, ``Show us.''
        So, Mr. Secretary, we think you're doing a great job, but
    these three things are really--have now come to the Cabinet
    level, and we look forward to working with you.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. There's only about 3 minutes left in the
    vote--Senator Brownback, did you want to have a round of
    questions?

                      SUBSIDATION OF EADS AIRBUS AIRCRAFT

        Senator Brownback. Yes, and I won't take long on this, but
    this is just a--this is a big deal, it's been going on for a
    long time. Just to complete that area, because I tried to stay
    within my time on that 5 minutes, and--but we believe, the U.S.
    Government, that every EADS Airbus plane receives launch aid in
    its development, believes in our proposal that each is given
    help in the development costs, is that correct, in the U.S.
    Government's position?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I'll have to check if every single
    plane--I know that we have alleged that the new planes that
    have come out, that there have been launch aids given by the
    Government.
        Senator Brownback. And that, for the A-330, includes the A-
    330 airplane?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I believe so.
        Senator Brownback. My point to you is simply that wherever
    the plane is put together, it's the U.S. Government's position
    that that plane has received somewhere between 33 percent to
    100 percent of its development cost from European governments,
    and that's in our claim, that's in our proposal. And that that
    applies in pulling down the cost of each of those planes, and
    that's why they can be more competitive against a Boeing plane,
    is in our base proposal.
        And that's, I just--I wanted to draw that attention to you,
    and to my colleagues, because if we win this case and we're
    successful on it, there's going to be, then, what are we going
    to do in response to this, toward EADS and Airbus? And it's
    going to affect a lot of things that are being discussed, and
    the Secretary is going to be involved in these retaliatory
    measures, substantially, because of the development cost was
    for the whole plane. And then that is spread about over all
    planes that are sold.
        So, I--I appreciate Madam Chairman----

                                CLOSING REMARKS

        Senator Mikulski. Colleagues, I'm going to have to close
    out the hearing. I'm going to invite Senator Shelby to have
    whatever he wishes to say. But I want to announce that this
    hearing, after the conclusion of his remarks, will come to an
    end. The subcommittee, we can submit questions and so on for 30
    days, we will stand in recess until March 13, when we'll hear
    from NOAA and NSF.
        Senator Shelby. Madam Chairman, I just want to answer that,
    the best I can. We have this ongoing dispute of subsidies, and
    that's got to be settled there, but what we have here, though,
    is an award of a tanker by the Air Force that's going to be
    built in the United States with the air frame which comes from
    EADS, which the Air Force has selected in five major categories
    as superior, and we're talking about the warfighter, what's
    best for the warfighter.
        Boeing, in a lot of people's estimates, submitted an old
    plane, old technology, and they lost, fair and square. And now
    they're trying to come in different ways. I don't believe it's
    going to work. I think the decision by the Air Force will
    either be upheld or changed by the Government Accountability
    Office and that's regular procedure, that's not before us
    today.
        Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. If there are no further questions this
    morning, Senators may submit additional questions for the
    subcommittee's official hearing record. We request the
    Department's response within 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

                   CENSUS--2008 DRESS REHEARSAL AND HANDHELDS

        Question. I understand that the handheld computers were tested in
    last year's dress rehearsal of address canvassing. How did they
    perform? What problems were identified? What is the status of fixing
    those problems?
        Answer. We completed the Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing on
    schedule using the handheld computers supplied by the FDCA contractor.
    Although we experienced some software, help desk, and training problems
    with this first-ever deployment of the contractor's solution, many of
    the problems were resolved quickly. We continue to examine the results
    to determine what needs to be done to make improvements for the 2010
    Census Address Canvassing operation, which will begin a year from now.
        During the Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing operations, where
    census enumerators verify and update our Master Address File, the
    devices proved to be reliable, with a hardware failure rate of less
    than 1 percent--much better than industry standards. The devices were
    also secure--they required a fingerprint and password to operate, and
    the data were fully encrypted in the device and during transmission. We
    successfully collected precise Global Positioning System (GPS)
    coordinates for housing units and map features; data we collected were
    transmitted effectively via both landline and wireless transmissions;
    and our workers were generally comfortable working with the device. We
    were also able to identify software problems and apply solutions
    simultaneously and uniformly to all devices via electronic transmission
    to each device daily upon start-up.
        Following the Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing operation, Census
    Bureau and contractor staff identified problems and analyzed their
    causes to learn from this operation. Teams conducted more detailed
    analyses of the transmission component of the design and performance
    during Address Canvassing. These analyses included data on average
    transmission time, the average size of transmissions, the type of data
    being transmitted, and the number of transmissions. The contractor also
    analyzed the end-to-end transmission workflow, problems documented in
    help desk tickets, and assignment area size. These analyses led to a
    number of corrective measures that are now being taken to improve
    performance of the handheld computer and of the transmission process.
    For example:
      --The initial handheld computer software design inhibited efficient
            transmission to and from the handheld computer, resulting in
            enumerator downtime. We resolved this by making improvements to
            the database design and implementing hardware and software
            upgrades.
      --The handheld computers did not function well if the data files were
            too large. They worked most efficiently with assignment areas
            of up to 720 addresses. However, approximately 3 percent of the
            assignment areas had more than that. We are addressing this
            issue for the nationwide 2010 Census Address Canvassing
            operation by limiting the size of the assignment areas and the
            amount of data that must be downloaded and processed on the
            handheld computer.
      --The contractor's operations support (``help desk'') solution was
            insufficient to meet the type and amount of support needs for
            our field staff. We are addressing this by improving
            operational readiness (more testing, increased knowledge base
            development, and additional support personnel training) and by
            jointly developing a more robust support system.

                          FDCA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

        Question. The Field Data Collection Automation contract was awarded
    on April 4, 2006. Obviously, at the time Census and Harris figured all
    the work associated with the contract could be accomplished on time and
    within the $600 million budget.
        Given the complexity of the system why were Census' assumptions
    regarding time required for the handheld contract so far off?
        Answer. Early in the decade, we believed our experienced Census
    Bureau staff could develop and deploy the handheld computers for use in
    the 2010 Census. These staff did produce the solutions we tested in
    both the 2004 Census Test and 2006 Census Test. Although we were able
    to develop and use them well enough to determine that we could conduct
    field data collection on such devices, by 2004 we had concluded that we
    did not have sufficient expert resources in house to do this for the
    2010 Census, so we decided to contract this effort to the private
    sector. At the time we prepared the RFP, our strategy was to supply
    high-level functional requirements to the contractor on award, and then
    to determine final detailed requirements based on what we learned from
    the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, and the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal.
        Thus, at the time of contract award in April 2006, both the Census
    Bureau and the contractor were fully aware this strategy would mean a
    tight schedule for requirements development, system design, system
    development, and deployment. The initial requirements strategy at that
    point was to develop remaining requirements in a two-step process.
    First, based on results from the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, we would
    provide detailed Dress Rehearsal requirements for our major operations.
    Then, based on lessons learned from the Dress Rehearsal, we would make
    adjustments to those detailed requirements for 2010 Census operations,
    as well as develop the detailed requirements for those operations that
    could not be included in Dress Rehearsal (e.g., enumeration in Puerto
    Rico; enumeration in remote areas).
        The contract was awarded in April 2006--less than one year before
    the first major application was needed for the Dress Rehearsal Address
    Canvassing operation. We knew this was a very aggressive schedule, and
    to mitigate some of this risk, all of the final vendors for the
    contract were required to develop a prototype of the Address Canvassing
    device so that, upon award, they would already have initial development
    underway. However, after contract award, it became clear that the
    contractor's funding needs by fiscal year differed from what the Census
    Bureau had assumed in its lifecycle cost estimate for the contract. In
    particular, the contractor stated they needed more of the overall
    contract funding earlier in the cycle, including fiscal year 2006.
    Because the Congress had already appropriated funds for fiscal year
    2006, and the President had already made his request to the Congress
    for fiscal year 2007, the Census Bureau had limited flexibility to
    address these funding issues directly. In response, the Census Bureau
    reprogrammed some funding to the FDCA contract, and a re-plan was
    developed which, among other things, delayed and extended software
    development into seven increments. Thus, this re-plan added additional
    risk to the overall development plan and strategy, though at the time
    the Census Bureau thought the added risk was manageable.
        Question. Last month, nearly 21 months after awarding the contract
    Census finally provided the contractor with a final set of technical
    requirements. Why did it take so long to finalize the requirements?
        Answer. As mentioned above, at the time of contract award in March
    2006, both the Census Bureau and the contractor were fully aware this
    strategy would mean a tight schedule for requirements development,
    system design, system development, and deployment. The initial
    requirements strategy at that point was to develop remaining
    requirements in a two-step process. First, based on results from the
    2004 and 2006 Census Tests, we would provide detailed Dress Rehearsal
    requirements for our major operations. Then, based on lessons learned
    from the Dress Rehearsal, we would make adjustments to those detailed
    requirements for 2010 Census operations, as well as develop the
    detailed requirements for those operations that could not be included
    in Dress Rehearsal (e.g., enumeration in Puerto Rico; enumeration in
    remote areas).
        We were moving on that path when, in October 2007, we had to de-
    scope many paper-based dress rehearsal activities in order to have
    sufficient funds to keep this contract (and our data capture systems
    contract) on schedule in developing critical applications and
    interfaces planned for the Dress Rehearsal. Until that point, we still
    were planning to use our Dress Rehearsal experiences with various
    operations to help finalize detailed requirements for the FDCA
    contractor. However, because most of those operations had to be
    cancelled, in mid-November 2007, the contractor requested, and we
    agreed, to move forward immediately to deliver a final set of all
    detailed requirements. This effort was completed, and we delivered them
    to the contractor on January 16, 2008.

                             HARRIS CONTRACT AWARDS

        Question. I understand that this was a ``cost-plus contract'', as
    such bonuses were awarded based on performance. Harris was awarded two
    bonuses on grades of 91 and 93 for this program.
        What criteria were used to determine that Harris was exceeding
    expectations and deserved these bonuses?
        Answer. No bonuses have been awarded for this contract. The only
    opportunity for the contractor to earn any profit (over and above
    costs) is through the award fee process. For this contract, there are
    four evaluation categories for the award fee determination: Business
    Management; Technical Management; Project Integration; and FDCA/DRIS
    Integration.
        The criteria used in assessing performance are: Quality,
    efficiency, ingenuity, responsiveness, thoroughness, timeliness,
    resourcefulness, accuracy, safety/health/environmental compliance,
    communication, autonomy, and contract management.
        FDCA award fees are determined by an Award Fee Determination Board
    consisting of a Chairperson, eight voting members and three non-voting
    members and an Award Fee Determining Official, in accordance with
    procedures outlined below:
      --1. Government Technical Monitors (TMs) prepare/submit monthly
            Technical Monitors Reports (TMRs) documenting aspects of
            Contractor performance.
      --2. Government Principal Technical Monitor (PTM) prepares/submits
            monthly report summarizing TMRs.
      --3. Together with final monthly TMR in the Award Fee Period (AFP),
            TMs also prepare/submit a summary report of observations over
            the entire AFP; the PTM prepares a similar overall summary.
      --4. FDCA Project Management Office (PMO) distributes timetable of
            activities called for by the FDCA Award Fee Determination Plan
            and schedules necessary meetings/briefings.
      --5. FDCA PMO distributes TMRs/PTMRs, any Individual Event Reports,
            and related information to Award Fee Board members.
      --6. Contractor submits (and briefs to the Award Fee Determination
            Board) its Self-Evaluation Report for the AFP in question.
      --7. Award Fee Determination Board members review documentation
            referenced in previous steps, and other documentation deemed
            relevant by individual Board members (e.g., field observation
            reports).
      --8. Award Fee Determination Board meets to arrive at consensus
            score.
      --9. FDCA PMO documents Board's findings and conclusions and briefs
            Award Fee Determining Official.
      --10. Award Fee Determining Official makes final fee determination.
      --11. Government Contracting Officer reviews determination for
            contract compliance and submits invoice authorization letter to
            Contractor.
      --12. FDCA PMO debriefs Contractor on final award fee determination.
        Step 4 takes place shortly before the end of a given Award Fee
    Period. Steps 5 through 12 are scheduled so as to conclude no later
    than 60 calendar days after the end of the Award Fee Period.

                           EFFECT OF FDCA ALTERNATIVE

        Question. One of the options being looked at is to de-scope the
    contract and bring work back in-house at Census.
        What other programs will suffer as a result of Census
    reprioritizing staff to work on this program? Will additional
    contractors be needed? If additional contractors are used, aren't we
    back where we started?
        Answer. We do not believe this decision will have any significant
    impact on other programs. We likely will have to hire additional staff
    or contract support personnel to accomplish this work. These
    contractors will be used to supplement and support Census Bureau staff
    leading the work. This will not involve another solutions-based
    contract like FDCA.

                               MANAGEMENT REFORM

        Question. What management reforms have you put in place in order to
    avoid problems from now until the conclusion of the 2010 census?
        Answer. We have a new Acting Associate Director for Decennial
    Census, Arnold Jackson. Other moves are under consideration. We are
    taking a series of steps to strengthen management, including:
      --Instituting a new management approach that will strengthen planning
            and oversight relative to risk management, issue
            identification, product testing, communications, and budget/
            cost management.
      --Increasing the intensity and pace of senior management involvement,
            including daily status assessments and problem resolution
            sessions chaired by the Associate Director, weekly status
            assessment meetings with the Director and Deputy Director,
            periodic but unannounced reviews by MITRE and Department of
            Commerce specialists in IT, project management, and
            contracting.
        We also are developing a comprehensive plan that consolidates the
    recommendations from several studies and reviews, including MITRE, GAO,
    our own Blue team, the FDCA Risk Reduction Task Force, and the
    Secretary's expert panel. Some of the action items we are committing to
    are:
      --Comprehensive risk management such that the higher impact risks are
            known as early as possible and elevated to proper levels for
            timely resolution.
      --Strengthened leadership in the Decennial Program so that
            stakeholders, contractors, staff, and management are unified
            and focused on the issues that drive a successful census.
      --Transitioning from a planning phase of the Decennial cycle to an
            action-oriented operational phase by shortening decision
            cycles, cutting internal redtape, and pushing more problem
            resolution responsibility down to our managers.
      --Adhering to a structured plan of action to see that the things we
            have not done well do get better as rapidly as we can.
        The FDCA PMO and the Software Assessment Team have agreed to a plan
    to strengthen oversight of the contractor, and the plan is known as our
    ``Insight Plan''. The PMO launched implementation of the Insight Plan a
    few weeks ago, and some of the key steps of that plan are:
      --A much closer review of the contractor's software earlier in the
            development and test cycle.
      --Permanent Census staff at the contractor's Largo facility and staff
            embedded with the contractor at key points in the development
            cycle from requirements clarification to product release for
            final field hands on testing.
      --Improving the contractor's test cases by including more realistic
            census events and operationally characteristic data.
      --Involving census users of the information collected by the handheld
            system in the process of review and approval of contractor
            products before they are final. This will greatly increase
            stakeholder participation and bring about rapid feedback needed
            for problem correction.
        Question. After the problems with NPOESS we brought in a person
    with a proven track record to rescue the program and get thing moving
    in the right direction. Who is your General Mashiko for the Handheld
    contract?
        Answer. We recognize the need for better program oversight, program
    integration, and acquisition management. We are in the process of
    finalizing leadership and management improvements that address these
    needs and expect to announce these in the near future.

                         OTHER 2010 DECENNIAL CONTRACTS

        Question. The handheld computer contract is just one of many large
    contracts supporting the reengineering of 2010 operations. Given the
    problems with FDCA have you begun a top to bottom review of these
    programs? What assurances can you give the Subcommittee that there are
    no other problems lurking out there?
        Answer. One of our major, multiyear contracts for the 2010 Census
    recently was completed on time and within budget. Only one minor task
    and contract closeout remain. The Harris Corporation successfully
    completed its tasks in support of this MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement
    Program, which now has brought our geographic databases into GPS
    alignment for the entire country.
        For our two other major IT contracts, we are working with the same
    vendors who supplied similar solutions for Census 2000. For the Data
    Response Integration System (DRIS) contract, we selected Lockheed
    Martin, who was the contractor for the Census 2000 data capture system.
    For the Data Access and Dissemination System (DADS) II contract, we
    selected IBM, who also was the contractor for our existing DADS system.
    While previous experience with the same contractors on similar tasks is
    no guarantee of a problem-free process, we are much more confident
    these contracts will be completed on time and within budget.
        Although not an IT contract, we do have some initial concerns about
    the Communications contract and have reduced their initial award fee
    for the first evaluation period. Our primary concern is that their
    initial draft plan was not as fully detailed or analytically robust as
    we required in our statement of work. They can recover this fee
    reduction in the second evaluation period, and we are hopeful their
    performance will improve so that they do so.

              SATELLITE OVERSIGHT DURING ADMINISTRATION TRANSITION

        Question. What management reforms have you instituted within your
    office to ensure adequate oversight of NOAA and its satellite programs
    as we transition into a new Administration?
        Answer. With regards to the GOES-R program, on December 21, 2007,
    the Department delegated Key Decision Point Authority for the GOES-R
    program to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. With that
    delegation, the Department laid out a series of expectations for the
    program:
      --The GOES-R program will adhere to the Department's standard review
            board processes.
      --NOAA and the GOES-R program will make available all information
            necessary for budget oversight and legal advice.
      --NOAA and the GOES-R program will provide the Department will all
            briefings and information packages for all Key Decision Point
            Reviews and will provide the Chief Financial Officer and
            Assistant Secretary for Administration quarterly briefings.
      --The Department established cost and schedule thresholds for
            reporting variances.
        The Department fully expects that these requirements will survive
    the transition into a new administration. In addition, the NOAA Deputy
    Under Secretary, a career NOAA executive, will continue to provide
    senior oversight of NOAA's satellite acquisition programs. The
    Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services and
    Deputy Assistant Administrator for Systems have multiple years of
    experience acquiring satellite systems and will continue to provide
    day-to-day supervision of the System Program Directors of the
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite N Series (GOES-N),
    GOES-R Series, Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites
    (POES), and the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
    Satellite System (NPOESS) programs.
        NOAA has also established a Program Management Council (PMC) that
    meets monthly to review and provide oversight to the major acquisition
    programs. The PMC will continue its reviews of all NOAA satellite
    acquisition programs during the transition period.

                       VIIRS AND OCEAN COLOR REQUIREMENTS

        Question. The latest problem with NPOESS is its main sensor, know
    as VIIIRS, will not meet all of the requirements for ``ocean color'' in
    time for the NPP launch. However, we have been told that this problem
    will be corrected in time for the first NPOESS launch.
        Answer. This is correct. In 2007, problems were noted during
    testing of the VIIRS instrument that were traced to the Integrated
    Filter Assembly (IFA), which allowed some light to cross into the wrong
    detectors, and caused degraded performance of ocean color sensing.
        The NPOESS Executive Committee (EXCOM) directed the NPOESS
    Integrated Program Office (IPO) to: (1) fly the first sensor on NPP
    with the existing IFA, accepting the existing performance degradation
    for that mission; and (2) resolve the VIIRS IFA problems before flying
    it on NPOESS C1.
        The agreed to path forward is to remanufacture the IFA to achieve
    an acceptable Ocean Color/Chlorophyll (OC/C) capability for NPOESS C1.
    The remanufactured IFA was delivered ahead of the scheduled June 2008
    plan. Performance results are expected from IFA testing this year.
        Question. By placing a VIIRS on NPP with less than 20/20 vision
    will we still get useable science when it comes to ocean color?
        Answer. The expectation for Visible/Infrared Imager/Radiometer
    Suite (VIIRS) on NPP is expected to exceed existing operational earth
    observation capabilities in space. VIIRS is expected to meet 20 of 21
    Environmental Data Records, including the Imagery and Sea Surface
    Temperature Key Performance Parameters (KPP). These data records are
    the main scientific data required of the NPP. Only Ocean Color/
    Chlorophyll (OC/C) products and Aerosol will be degraded.
        Although these Ocean Color/Chlorophyll products and Aerosol will be
    degraded from original levels of performance, aerosol measurements will
    still be at specification.
        Question. What assurances can you give us that the ocean color
    problem will be correct on VIIRS in time for the first launch of
    NPOESS?
        Answer. The remanufactured Integrated Filter Assembly (IFA)
    incorporates a different coating technology which is expected to
    significantly reduce the amount of degradation. Testing later this year
    will verify performance against the VIIRS specification requirements.

                                GOES-R CONTRACTS

        Question. Will the contract for GOES-R be a ``firm-fixed price'' or
    a ``cost-plus'' contract?
        Answer. The contracts for the GOES-R Ground and the Flight Segments
    will be Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts.
        Question. Will the GOES-R contract include cost overrun penalties
    to ensure contractors don't get away with another boon-doggle?
        Answer. The GOES-R Program will structure the contract management
    mechanisms for the Ground and Flight Segment contracts to ensure
    adequate safeguards to prevent contract overruns.
        For the GOES-R Ground and Flight Segment contracts, overall cost
    performance will be evaluated on how well the total cumulative actual
    costs were controlled as compared to the negotiated baseline estimated
    costs. Per the award fee structure, the contractors should not earn a
    satisfactory rating for cost control when there is a significant cost
    overrun within its control. The Government will consider the reasons
    for any overrun and assess the extent and effectiveness of the
    contractor's efforts to control or mitigate the overrun.

                      GOES-R ``COST-PLUS'' CONTRACT OPTION

        Question. Given all the problems associated with the Department of
    Commerce's other ``cost-plus'' contracts, namely the Handheld computers
    at Census and NOAA's own NPOESS, would it not be a better decision to
    not do a ``cost-plus'' contract?
        Answer. A cost plus type contract is suitable for the GOES-R Ground
    and Flight Segment contracts as there are too many uncertainties
    involved in contract performance that do not permit costs to be
    estimated with sufficient accuracy to use a fixed-price contract.
    Because of the high degree of uncertainty in developing this new
    observing system and the volume of data produced by these new sensors
    that the ground system will have to process, contractor proposals for a
    fixed-price contract would contain an extremely large amount of risk/
    contingency funding which would eliminate any degree of potential
    savings with a fixed-price contract. In addition, cost pressure on a
    contractor in such a contract can drive them towards cost cutting
    efforts that threaten mission success. For programs such as these, NOAA
    prefers to maintain risk dollars outside of the contract in order to
    have close government control of cost/schedule and technical trades
    throughout the development cycle.

                           GOES-R TOTAL PROGRAM COST

        Question. If the decision is made to build the 2 option satellites
    then what will the total program cost be?
        Answer. The estimated cost for the additional two satellites is
    estimated between $2.5 and $3 billion above the current $7.672 billion
    cost for the two satellite program. This includes four satellites,
    instruments for each, ground facility support, and operations and
    sustainment (O&S) funding for the lifetime of all four satellites. The
    last satellite (GOES-U) is expected to cease operations in 2036.

                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

        Question. At last year's hearing we talked about my concerns with
    PTO. I appreciate that you took my request for a remediation plan
    seriously. Unfortunately we need to do more. For example the GAO has
    recommended that patent examiner's work production quotas need to be
    revised. Do you agree with this recommendation?
        Answer. In September 2007, the GAO recommended that the USPTO
    undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the assumptions that the agency
    uses to establish its production goals. In September 2004, the Commerce
    OIG also recommended that the USPTO reevaluate current patent examiner
    goals and assess the merits of revising them to reflect efficiencies in
    and changes to work processes resulting from automation and other
    enhancements. I agree that a comprehensive evaluation of the
    assumptions that the agency uses to establish its production goals is
    appropriate.
        Question. Will you charge the PTO to immediately begin a
    comprehensive revision of these work production quotas?
        Answer. I support the USPTO's ongoing efforts to conduct a
    strategic level assessment of its patent examiner production process in
    comparison to best practices similar to other large-scale federal
    agencies and commercial organizations.
        To that end, the USPTO is selecting a contractor with expertise in
    assessing practices in large-scale production environments to conduct
    an independent analysis.
        Another significant component of these ongoing efforts includes
    evaluation of the Flat Goal Pilot Program, initiated by the USPTO in
    April of 2007. The ``Flat Goal'' pilot tests a new concept of how
    patent examiner production is measured.
        Specifically, the 173 patent examiners who volunteered for the one-
    year pilot (April 2007-April 2008) are given flexibility in choosing
    when and how to do their work, and may earn larger, quarterly bonuses
    for every application examined above a particular target goal rather
    than earning bonuses on an annual basis.
        Examiners who participate are assigned a production goal at the
    beginning of each quarter rather than tracking their use of examining
    time throughout the quarters of the fiscal year. The results of the
    flat goal pilot may help the USPTO reassess some of the assumptions
    underlying the examiner production goals.
        Question. Since we met last year patent waiting times have
    continued to increase due to the increasing dual challenges of rising
    workloads and more complex challenges. What efforts has PTO made to
    provide continuing education to its examiners so that they can review
    these ever more complex technologies?
        Answer. Effective training and continuing review and education are
    priority issues for the USPTO because the agency recognizes that the
    expertise of its examining corps is the primary factor influencing
    patent quality.

    Tech Fairs
        Our Technology Centers (TCs) regularly hold on-campus ``tech
    fairs'' where industry speakers share state-of-the-art information with
    our patent examiners. In April 2008, the USPTO held a Design Day for
    its design examiners (TC 2900), where USPTO specialists shared
    information on the Hague Agreement and its implementation and how
    design patents impact the economy.
        On May 5, the USPTO has planned a Tech Fair for the biotechnology
    area (TC 1600). Dr. John Rossi from Beckman Research Center of City of
    Hope will speak about the state of the art in Dicer-substrates and
    Oligonucleotides and Dr. Kevin D'Amour from Novocell will speak about
    human embryonic stem cells. On May 14 and 15, a Tech Fair is scheduled
    for the semiconductor area (TC 2800). Thomas Gallagher from IBM will
    speak about magnetic random access memory; Santokh Badesha from Xerox
    will give an overview of electrophotography; and Michael Nelson from
    NanoInk will speak about ``Nanotechnology Applications and Micro
    Electromechanical (MEM) Devices.''
        On June 4 and 5, the USPTO has planned a Tech Fair for the
    mechanical area (TCs 3600 and 3700). Dr. Ned Allen from Lockheed Martin
    will speak about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; John Boller from Mizuno
    will speak about golf equipment; and William Bachand from Taser
    International will speak about the ``Taser Gun.''
        We are happy to invite you and your staff to participate in any of
    USPTO's tech fairs so you can see for yourself the sort of cross-
    pollination training provided for examiners.

    Expanded Technical Training Program
        The USPTO has expanded the range of eligible non-duty training
    courses available for examiners to enhance their technical skills and
    abilities. A similar ``After Work Education'' (AWE) program is
    currently being implemented for technical support personnel.
        While the USPTO has provided paid non-duty training in the past to
    patent examiners to enable them to take technical classes, it was
    determined that the previous program was too restrictive. In response
    to an explicit need expressed by the examiners, amendments were made to
    broaden the program to provide examiners with one year of experience at
    the USPTO the opportunity to take classes in arts outside their
    immediate docket. The classes, however, must still be related to a
    recognized technology that is examined at the USPTO.
        This program will assist in developing and maintaining a highly
    skilled workforce by enhancing the employees' knowledge, skills and
    abilities through formal education. Currently, the patent examiner can
    receive up to $5,000 per year, and the agency has proposed to raise
    that opportunity to $10,000 per year.

    University-style Training
        USPTO's recently established university-style training program
    leads to new-hire examiners with the ability, skills and confidence to
    work with reduced oversight. The training program consists of classes
    of approximately 130 students, which are broken down further into small
    ``labs'' of approximately 16 examiners who will work in a similar area
    of technology. The training program is conducted over a period of 8
    months in a location outside of the Technology Centers.
        The program courses are taught through a combination of large
    lectures and small group sessions within the individual labs. The
    curriculum is kept current by a committee, with representation from
    every Technology Center, that writes and reviews the substance of the
    curriculum.
        Lectures are followed by practical application and testing. The
    results of ongoing testing, administered electronically, indicate to
    examiners how well they grasp a particular topic and provide the
    trainer with information as to whether segments of the topic need
    additional review. Examiners write Office actions that are reviewed and
    evaluated by the trainer who provides appropriate feedback. A
    proficiency test is administered at the end of the 8-month program. The
    intent of the program is to deliver, to the examining corps, new hires
    who are capable of writing complete Office actions for supervisory
    review.

    Examiner Certification and Recertification
        The USPTO has implemented a thorough certification process for any
    patent examiner seeking to be promoted from the GS-12 level to the GS-
    13 level. This process includes a review of the work product of the
    examiner and a certification exam modeled upon the patent bar exam that
    patent attorneys and agents must pass.
        Examiners are provided with legal education on fundamental concepts
    involving patent laws and procedures to assist them in the preparation
    of taking the certification exam. Patent law and evidence courses,
    coaching lectures and on-line Study Tool for Examination Preparation
    (STEP) are offered to the examiners as training preparation tools.
        An in-depth review of the work of primary examiners is conducted
    after three years to ensure that primary examiners maintain the
    knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to perform high quality
    examinations.

    Patent Reviews
        USPTO's Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) has implemented
    targeted reviews of examination processes or functions that are
    perceived to potentially be problematic trends. These reviews provide a
    means to validate the accuracy and magnitude of the most significant
    examination process complaints, to establish a baseline of current
    performance in the targeted area as well as a basis to establish
    performance targets for improvement plans.
        The reviews are conducted on a sample designed to provide
    statistically valid data and yield an assessment of the current level
    of performance and the supporting review data with respect to the
    identified examination process or function. Based on input on potential
    areas for consideration obtained through customer satisfaction survey
    data and other input from applicants and practitioners, the areas of
    final rejection practice, Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
    practice, search quality and restriction practice were identified for
    review during fiscal year 2007. Fiscal year review findings are
    summarized at the Corps and Tech Center levels and OPQA consults with
    the Technology Centers to develop and/or implement improvement plans,
    as appropriate.
        In October 2006, OPQA instituted an in-depth analysis of the search
    quality in applications selected from specific Art Units within each
    Technology Center in order to positively identify root-cause problems
    related to search quality and to identify and share best practices. Art
    Units subject to review were selected by the Technology Centers on the
    basis of perceived need, taking into account the findings of quality
    assurance programs in place within the Technology Centers and the OPQA.
        Based upon the review findings, training tailored to the specific
    needs and technical subject matter of the individual Art Units is
    developed and delivered to the unit in an interactive format. Training
    is a collaborative effort between OPQA, Technology Center managers and
    search experts from the Scientific and Technical Information Center and
    covers topics including search strategy, claim interpretation, search
    tools and effective search techniques.
        Question. The remediation plan you presented to the Subcommittee
    discussed a number of initiatives devoted to improving retention rates
    of staff. What progress has PTO made in instituting these initiatives
    and when will we begin to see measurable progress in improving
    retention rates of examiners?
        The USPTO has already achieved notable successes in patent examiner
    retention efforts; during fiscal year 2007 our targeted strategies
    focusing on first-year attrition were very successful. First-year
    attrition is the highest attrition year for nearly all businesses and
    has historically averaged 20 percent at the USPTO. In 2007, the USPTO
    reduced the overall first-year attrition rate to 15 percent. Further,
    in some hard-to-hire areas where we targeted recruitment bonuses, the
    first-year attrition rate was cut in half--to 10 percent.
        Additional relevant retention facts include the following:
      --The USPTO's overall, organizational attrition rate (8.5 percent) is
            lower than the average attrition rate for Federal workers (11.2
            percent).
      --The average attrition rate for USPTO patent examiners with 0-3
            years experience is 15.5 percent. The average attrition rate
            for USPTO patent examiners with 3-30 years experience is 3.95
            percent.
      --The attrition rate of patent examiners with 0-3 years experience,
            though measurably higher than the rest of the patent corps,
            appears to be well below the attrition rate experienced by
            similarly situated entities hiring more than 1,000 engineers in
            a year.
      --Examiners with the highest production requirements have the lowest
            attrition rates, and the examiners with the lowest production
            requirements have the highest attrition rates. In fact, 70
            percent of all work in fiscal year 2007 was done by examiners
            with 3 or more years of experience who exceeded their
            production goals by an average of 8 percent and had an average
            attrition rate of 3.95 percent.
      --60 percent of all patent examiners exceeded their production
            requirements by at least 10 percent in fiscal year 2006.
        Question. PTO's management continually states that examiners are
    leaving for better opportunities, when in fact the GAO's survey
    revealed that 67 percent of examiners who left cited the workload and
    production quotas as their primary reason for leaving. Why is PTO
    management in a state of denial over the reasons examiners are leaving?
        Answer. The GAO's data was based on its survey of current
    employees, and asked these current employees to speculate (from a
    preset list of possible answers) regarding the primary reason they
    would consider leaving were they do leave. Under these parameters,
    those surveyed identified production goals as among the primary reasons
    they would leave the USPTO if they did leave.
        As you can see, the approach used in the GAO survey is not the same
    as asking people who actually chose to leave why they are leaving (or
    have left).
        The USPTO conducts actual exit interviews--as opposed to
    speculative interviews--with employees who do choose to leave. Based on
    the information provided to us by employees who are actually leaving
    the agency, we have enhanced our hiring and recruitment process.
        In 2006, the USPTO started a focused effort on exit interviews, to
    help better determine why employees who actually leave the USPTO decide
    to do so. The exit interviews are voluntary, but the data indicate
    that--even though attrition is relatively low after the first three
    years--room for improvement remains. Senior employees most frequently
    cited personal reasons and management issues when asked for the primary
    reason they were leaving. The USPTO has held off-site management
    conferences for two consecutive years to enhance communication and
    leadership skill sets.
        The GAO report draws attention to issues that are of paramount
    importance and the USPTO recognizes that attrition of patent examiners
    can impair the effectiveness of its hiring efforts. However, we do not
    observe a direct link between production requirements and attrition.
    For example, examiners with the highest production requirements have
    the lowest attrition rates, and the examiners with the lowest
    production requirements have the highest attrition rates. Also, 70
    percent of all work in fiscal year 2007 was done by examiners with 3 or
    more years of experience who exceeded their production goals by an
    average of 8 percent and had an average attrition rate of 3.95 percent.

                              ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

        Question. What data did you use to determine that $8.7 million
    would meet the nation's needs for rural economic development?
        Answer. From 2001-2007, EDA invested approximately $1 billion or 62
    percent of its total investments in rural communities. Although EDA
    does not have a program specifically targeted for rural communities,
    rural areas typically receive 50 percent or more of the agency's total
    investments annually. We do not anticipate a substantial change in
    fiscal year 2009.
        Question. Given the proposed cut to public works grants it would
    seem logical that there should be a corresponding cut to EDA's salaries
    and expense account. Why were salaries not cut or is this just an
    indication that this request should not be taken seriously?
        Answer. The increase in the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account is
    necessary for EDA to maintain its full staffing level of 170 full time
    equivalents (FTE). EDA's staff performs multiple duties across its
    programs, not just evaluating and processing new grants. Therefore,
    maintaining EDA's current staff level is necessary to provide
    assistance to communities and maintain current programmatic functions.
        Since 2001, EDA's S&E account has remained virtually flat.
    Meanwhile, EDA's non-personnel operating costs--many of which, like
    computer security expenses, are inflexible--have increased by 45
    percent. EDA also faces annual personnel cost increases in its efforts
    to maintain an effective workforce. The lack of necessary funding
    increases in the S&E account to offset increases in non-personnel
    operating costs, has represented an effective $1.5 million annual cut
    in EDA's operating budget. Without the increase in S&E proposed in the
    fiscal year 2009 request, EDA may have to reduce staff.
        While EDA programs are flexible and scalable--we can ``ramp up''
    operations, as well as ``ramp down'' based on available funds--the
    agency nonetheless needs an appropriate level of funding to maintain
    its existing organizational structure as directed by Congress.
        Question. Your testimony states that the proposed reduction for
    economic development assistance is done in order to support other
    priorities. What are those other priorities?
        Answer. In a difficult budget environment, the Administration has
    made tough choices to rein in spending to eventually balance the
    budget. Areas such as homeland security and the 2010 Decennial Census
    exhibit pressing needs that necessitate these difficult choices.

                       ELIMINATION OF MEP FEDERAL FUNDING

        Question. The Administration again proposes devastating cuts to the
    one federal program specifically designed to assists manufacturers.
        Can you explain the rationale for the cut to the MEP?
        Answer. Elimination of federal funds to MEP centers could 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. This would move the centers to a self-
    sustaining basis. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget request
    focuses on NIST's core measurement science and standards activities in
    our laboratories that impact entire industries or entire sectors of the
    economy--and where Federal dollars can make the biggest impact on
    innovation and competitiveness. The focus of the fiscal year 2009
    budget supports this principle by increasing NIST Core activities,
    which increases by $115 million (+22 percent) over fiscal year 2008.
        Question. Your testimony states that the request ``includes $4
    million to transition the center to a self supporting basis''.
        Since this is a partnership with the states have you engaged MEP
    state partners on this decision?
        Answer. NIST shared the fiscal year 2009 President's budget for MEP
    with all MEP centers.
        Question. Can you share the analysis that went into the
    determination that the network will survive without federal cost share?
        Answer. With sufficient support from local resources along with
    increased fees from the manufacturing customers, the centers could
    remain operational.

                               DIGITAL TRANSITION

        Question. I have received constituent letters requesting
    information about the coupon program. The letters indicate confusion
    among average citizens regarding the transition to digital and where to
    request a coupon for a converter box.
        What is Commerce doing to educate consumers? With a limited budget
    for education and outreach what efforts are you undertaking to leverage
    your efforts? Should we provide additional funding in the supplemental
    to enhance education and outreach efforts?
        Answer. NTIA's consumer education campaign--coupled with the over
    $1 billion commitment from industry--is working. According to a recent
    survey by the Consumer Electronics Association, public awareness of the
    DTV transition grew 80 percent between August 2006 and January 2008,
    from 41 percent to 74 percent. Given consumer education activities have
    intensified since the beginning of 2008, we would expect consumer
    awareness to continue to increase. In addition, robust demand for
    converter box coupons, including demand from over-the-air reliant
    households, is a strong indication that consumers are learning about
    their options and taking the necessary action to ensure their TV sets
    continue to operate after the digital transition.
        Members of the industries most directly affected by the
    transition--television broadcasters, cable system operators, and
    consumer electronics retailers--are investing heavily to ensure that
    their viewers, subscribers and customers are made aware of the
    transition. Their efforts, targeted at the general population, have
    been very successful in raising consumer awareness and have enabled
    NTIA to focus its resources, funding, and activities on reaching
    particular groups that are likely to rely more heavily on over-the-air
    television than others. These include seniors, minorities, rural
    residents, people with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged
    households.
        NTIA's strategy for its consumer education campaign is simple and
    straightforward: use earned media and leverage trusted partners that
    possess pre-existing relationships with members of our target groups to
    deliver tailored messages about the transition and the Coupon Program.
    NTIA has instituted a proactive campaign to educate consumers about the
    role of the Coupon Program in the DTV transition, leveraging
    relationships with consumer groups, community organizations, federal
    agencies, and members of affected industries to inform consumers of
    their options. NTIA is collaborating with more than 200 partner
    organizations, including social service and community organizations
    with ties to seniors, rural residents, minorities, and disabled
    communities, as well as a variety of federal agencies that communicate
    directly with these constituent groups. As of March 31, 2008, broadcast
    and print coverage of the Coupon Program has reached over 200 million
    media. This is coupled with the National Association of Broadcasters'
    campaign which aims to generate 30 billion audience impressions of the
    broader digital television transition before February 17, 2009.
        Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission has received
    $2.5 million in fiscal year 2008 and requested an additional $20
    million for fiscal year 2009 specifically for consumer education about
    the DTV transition. Based upon multiple surveys that reveal a steep
    increase in consumer awareness about the transition and the sheer
    number of households that have ordered coupons to date (as of April 25,
    2008, 6.2 million households have ordered 11.9 million coupons), these
    combined consumer education efforts are working. NTIA is confident that
    these public and private sector investments in DTV consumer education
    will be sufficient to educate all consumers about the DTV transition
    and the TV Converter Box Coupon Program.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                      2010 DECENNIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING

        Question. I have serious concerns about how the Administration and
    the Department have been monitoring the progress of the 2010 Census.
    The Performance and Accountability Report for the Department submitted
    November 15, 2007, gave the Decennial Census a moderately effective
    score of 83 percent. It also says that the Census Bureau is ensuring
    oversight of critical information technology services.
        Given where we are today, Mr. Secretary, would you rate the Census
    Bureau's management of the Decennial Census as moderately effective?
        Answer. Both Secretary Gutierrez and Dr. Murdock have testified
    that the Census Bureau's failure to effectively communicate its
    expectations to the contractor has been a major contributor to the
    current situation.
        Given these concerns, both the Census Bureau and the Department of
    Commerce have made substantial management changes to address the
    challenges facing the 2010 Census. We are working to ensure that there
    is clear accountability and that we have set specific leadership
    expectations. This includes better integration between Census and
    Harris personnel; rapid decisionmaking; real-time problem solving; and
    improved transparency, oversight, and communication.
        We are taking this very seriously and hope these changes and others
    reflect our concern and ultimately our resolve to better serve the
    American people. Secretary Gutierrez is personally engaged in this
    matter and will continue to devote time to this issue until he can be
    assured that we have established a sustainable and achievable path
    forward to a successful 2010 Census.

                               MANAGEMENT REFORM

        Question. What are you doing to ensure that the Census Bureau has
    leadership capable of solving the problems with field automation and
    conducting a successful 2010 census?
        Answer. We have a new Acting Associate Director for Decennial
    Census, Arnold Jackson. Other moves are under consideration. We are
    taking a series of steps to strengthen management, including:
      --Instituting a new management approach that will strengthen planning
            and oversight relative to risk management, issue
            identification, product testing, communications, and budget/
            cost management.
      --Increasing the intensity and pace of senior management involvement,
            including daily status assessments and problem resolution
            sessions chaired by the Associate Director, weekly status
            assessment meetings with the Director and Deputy Director,
            periodic but unscheduled reviews by MITRE and Department of
            Commerce specialists in IT, project management, and
            contracting.
        We also are developing a comprehensive plan that consolidates the
    recommendations from several studies and reviews, including MITRE, GAO,
    our own Blue team, the Barron Task Force, and the Secretary's expert
    panel. Some of the action items we are committing to are:
      --Comprehensive risk management such that the higher impact risks are
            known as early as possible and elevated to proper levels for
            timely resolution.
      --Strengthened leadership in the Decennial Census Program so that
            stakeholders, contractors, staff, and management are unified
            and focused on the issues that drive a successful census.
      --Transitioning from a planning phase of the Decennial cycle to an
            action-oriented operational phase by shortening decision
            cycles, cutting internal redtape, and pushing more problem
            resolution responsibility down to our managers.
      --Adhering to a structured plan of action to see that the things we
            have not done well do get better as rapidly as we can.
        The FDCA PMO and the Software Assessment Team have agreed to a plan
    to strengthen oversight of the contractor, and the plan is known as our
    ``Insight Plan''. The PMO launched implementation of the Insight Plan a
    few weeks ago, and some of the key steps of that plan are:
      --A much closer review of the contractor's software earlier in the
            development and test cycle.
      --Permanent Census staff at the contractor's Largo facility and staff
            embedded with the contractor at key points in the development
            cycle from requirements clarification to product release for
            final field hands on testing.
      --Improving the contractor's test cases by including more realistic
            census events and operationally characteristic data.
      --Involving census users of the information collected by the handheld
            system in the process of review and approval of contractor
            products before they are final. This will greatly increase
            stakeholder participation and bring about rapid feedback needed
            for problem correction.

                             MITRE REVIEW JUNE 2007

        Question. In June of last year, MITRE produced a report
    recommending that Census immediately stabilize the requirements for
    data management and to co-locate Census and contractor staff. This
    report is in stark contrast to the information senior Census officials
    provided in December when they reported that this procurement was
    moving forward as expected. These same Census officials then submitted
    over 400 changes to the contractor less than a month after assuring
    this Committee that they had this procurement under control.
        Do you believe the Census now understands the requirements
    necessary to acquire the handhelds that they contracted for in 2006?
        Answer. Although we have decided to drop plans for using the
    handheld computers for nonresponse follow-up in 2010, we still will use
    them for the Address Canvassing operation that will begin one year from
    now in May 2009. We tested the use of the contractor's Address
    Canvassing solution last year, and while we experienced some problems,
    we believe the contractor now has a full set of final detailed
    requirements in place to ensure success for this operation next year.
    We continue to work with the contractor regarding new or revised
    requirements resulting from the shift to paper-based NRFU, and the
    other contract scope changes that were part of the recent decision
    announced by Secretary Gutierrez.
        At the time of contract award in March 2006, both the Census Bureau
    and the contractor were fully aware this strategy would mean a tight
    schedule for requirements development, system design, system
    development, and deployment. The initial requirements strategy at that
    point was to develop remaining requirements in a two-step process.
    First, based on results from the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, we would
    provide detailed Dress Rehearsal requirements for our major operations.
    Then, based on lessons learned from the Dress Rehearsal, we would make
    adjustments to those detailed requirements for 2010 Census operations,
    as well as develop the detailed requirements for those operations that
    could not be included in Dress Rehearsal (e.g., enumeration in Puerto
    Rico; enumeration in remote areas).
        We were moving on that path when, in October 2007, we had to de-
    scope many paper-based dress rehearsal activities in order to have
    sufficient funds to keep this contract (and our data capture systems
    contract) on schedule in developing critical applications and
    interfaces planned for the Dress Rehearsal. Until that point, we still
    were planning to use our Dress Rehearsal experiences with various
    operations to help finalize detailed requirements for the FDCA
    contractor. However, because most of those operations had to be
    cancelled, in mid-November 2007, the contractor requested, and we
    agreed, to move forward immediately to deliver a final set of all
    detailed requirements. This effort was completed, and we delivered them
    to the contractor on January 16, 2008. It was not until the contractor
    delivered their cost estimate (to complete all these requirements) at
    the end of January that the full scope of our problem came into focus.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, can you provide this Committee, in
    writing, a timeline that shows on which dates actions were taken by the
    Census to address the issues identified in the June MITRE report?
        Answer. After reviewing the June 2007 MITRE report the Census
    Bureau:
      --Established a temporary FDCA requirements ``SWAT Team'' to
            streamline, integrate and finalize all Dress Rehearsal
            requirements for FDCA, including better integration of the
            contractor's and Census Bureau's schedules.
      --Expanded the FDCA Strategy Group to include all division chiefs
            critical to the FDCA program. This group began meeting on a
            weekly basis to discuss and resolve FDCA issues and establish
            priorities.
      --With MITRE's assistance, redefined the process for finalizing 2010
            requirements to ensure a more structured, systematic, and
            integrated approach.
      --Clarified roles between the FDCA Project Management Office
            (responsible for contract management) and the Decennial
            Management Division (responsible for managing the entire 2010
            Census program).
      --Redefined the FDCA contract Change Management Process with the goal
            of ensuring additional control of requirements changes.
      --Established monthly Executive Management meetings in addition to
            the monthly Program Management Reviews. These meetings
            consisted of executives and key managers from both the FDCA
            contractor and the Census Bureau to discuss and resolve
            critical issues.
      --With MITRE's assistance, redefined and began implementation of a
            more structured Risk Management Process.
        In late November 2007, the Deputy Director of the Census Bureau
    initiated a comprehensive assessment to determine the status of the
    program and to better understand any issues or concerns as the program
    approached key 2010 Census milestones. This assessment included a
    series of wide-ranging meetings with Census Bureau staff directly
    involved in the FDCA program. The Deputy Director also met with Harris
    Corporation, the company developing the FDCA system, and MITRE
    Corporation, an information technology firm under contract with the
    Census Bureau. MITRE's role was to provide an internal, independent
    assessment of the information technology systems in the decennial
    programs and also IT systems in the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau
    also established an Integrated Project Team (IPT) made up of key, high
    ranking 2010 Census managers. The IPT was tasked with producing the
    final set of FDCA program requirements by mid-January 2008.
        This effort was completed, and the requirements delivered on
    January 16, 2008. At the end of January, the contractor provided
    feedback on these requirements, including their initial, high-level
    estimate of the additional costs that would be needed to meet all of
    the 2010 Census requirements.
        At this point, the full scope of our problem came into focus. New
    Census Bureau Director Steve Murdock then established a FDCA Task
    Force, chaired by former Deputy Director William Barron, and made up of
    some of the Census Bureau's and the Department's senior technical and
    management officials, as well as representatives from MITRE, to help
    develop a strategy to address these problems. The Task Force outlined
    four options for moving forward. All of these options called for using
    the handheld computers for Address Canvassing, and all but one (the
    baseline) assumed we would revert to a paper-based NRFU operation. For
    the other major components of FDCA, each of the options considered a
    combination of responsibilities between the contractor and the Census
    Bureau in terms of capabilities, expertise, staffing, timing, and
    costs.
        The work of the task force was then turned over to the Expert Panel
    established by the Secretary and made up of two former Census Bureau
    Directors, a former Associate Director of the Census Bureau, two
    information technology experts, and a former Member of Congress. After
    deliberating with this panel, the Secretary recommended the plan that
    he described in his testimony.
        As to management steps now being taken, we have a new acting
    Associate Director for Decennial Census, Arnold Jackson. Other moves
    are under consideration. We are taking a series of steps to strengthen
    management, including:
      --Instituting a new management approach that will strengthen planning
            and oversight relative to risk management, issue
            identification, product testing, communications, and budget/
            cost management.
      --Increasing the intensity and pace of senior management involvement,
            including daily status assessments and problem resolution
            sessions chaired by the Associate Director, weekly status
            assessment meetings with the Director and Deputy Director,
            periodic but unscheduled reviews by MITRE and Department of
            Commerce specialists in IT, project management, and
            contracting.
        We also are developing a comprehensive plan that consolidates the
    recommendations from several studies and reviews, including MITRE, GAO,
    an internal expert software assessment team, the Barron Task Force, and
    the Secretary's expert panel. Some of the action items we are
    committing to are:
      --Comprehensive risk management such that the higher impact risks are
            known as early as possible and elevated to proper levels for
            timely resolution.
      --Strengthened leadership in the Decennial Program so that
            stakeholders, contractors, staff, and management are unified
            and focused on the issues that drive a successful census.
      --Transitioning from a planning phase of the Decennial cycle to an
            action-oriented operational phase by shortening decision
            cycles, cutting internal redtape, and pushing more problem
            resolution responsibility down to our managers.
      --Adhering to a structured plan of action to see that the things we
            have not done well do get better as rapidly as we can.
        These management activities are described in our ``Program
    Management Plan'' to be finalized in early May.
        The FDCA PMO and the Software Assessment Team have agreed to a plan
    to strengthen oversight of the contractor, and the plan is known as our
    ``Insight Plan''. The PMO launched implementation of the Insight Plan a
    few weeks ago, and some of the key steps of that plan are:
      --A much closer review of the contractor's software earlier in the
            development and test cycle.
      --Permanent Census staff at the contractor's Largo facility and staff
            embedded with the contractor at key points in the development
            cycle from requirements clarification to product release for
            final field hands on testing.
      --Improving the contractor's test cases by including more realistic
            census events and operationally characteristic data.
      --Involving census users of the information collected by the handheld
            system in the process of review and approval of contractor
            products before they are final. This will greatly increase
            stakeholder participation and bring about rapid feedback needed
            for problem correction.

                                USE OF HANDHELDS

        Question. The primary innovation that was going to create
    significant savings and efficiencies for the 2010 Census revolves
    around the handheld computers and moving away from a paper based
    system. I would like to know what your plans are for dealing with the
    problems of the handheld computers and getting the 2010 census back on
    track.
        Will the handhelds still be used? When is the latest date you can
    make this decision?
        Answer. On April 3, 2008, Secretary Gutierrez testified before the
    House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies that he had decided to discontinue plans for using
    handheld computers for the 2010 Census nonresponse follow-up operation,
    and revert to the paper-based approach used in previous censuses. He
    also testified that we still plan to use these devices to conduct the
    nationwide Address Canvassing operation next year.
        Question. When will the Department determine if the handheld
    computers will be used for any portion of the 2010 Census?
        Answer. Please see previous response.

                          PAPER NON-RESPONSE FOLLOW UP

        Question. Will the Census have to go back to paper for non-response
    follow up? When will this decision have to be made?
        Answer. On April 3, 2008, Secretary Gutierrez testified before the
    House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies that he had decided to discontinue plans for using
    handheld computers for the 2010 Census nonresponse follow up operation,
    and revert to the paper-based approach used in previous censuses.

                          ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR CENSUS

        Question. This Committee has been supportive of the Bureau of the
    Census and its plans for the 2010 Census. However, it is obvious that
    more funds than anticipated will be required to conduct what is
    currently the most expensive census in our nation's history. GAO has
    estimated that the increase will be between $600 million and $1.2
    billion. Can we anticipate a supplemental request from the Department
    for fiscal year 2008 to accommodate the difficult position the Census
    finds itself in today?
        Answer. No, the Department will not be submitting a supplemental
    request to cover the funding shortfall in fiscal year 2008 related to
    the 210 Census. The Administration believes that the fiscally
    responsible action to address this difficult position is to work within
    existing resources at the Department. To that end, I have proposed
    transfers from other Commerce bureaus to provide the necessary
    resources for the Census Bureau. While this was a difficult decision, I
    believe that avoiding mission failure of a constitutionally-mandated
    operation at the Census Bureau warranted lesser impacts among our other
    bureaus.
        Question. Will there be a need for a budget amendment for fiscal
    year 2009 for the 2010 Census?
        Answer. Yes, addressing the issues within the 2010 Census will
    require a budget amendment for fiscal year 2009, as funding
    requirements for that year have grown beyond the requested level in the
    fiscal year 2009 President's budget submission.

                              NPOESS--VIIRS ISSUES

        Question. Last year we discussed the failures of the National
    Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
    which was scrutinized for its mismanagement and lack of oversight.
    Since that time NPOESS was restructured, but problems have occurred on
    a critical instrument the Visible Infrared Imager (VIIRS).
        Can you elaborate more on the problems that exist?
        Answer. The NPOESS Executive Committee, working with the NPOESS
    Program Executive Officer, has implemented a number of steps to address
    the management of the program. The key NPOESS sensors are currently in
    ambient testing, when several test anomalies are expected to be
    uncovered and addressed.
        One of the anomalies uncovered is the likelihood of performance
    degradation to ocean color/chlorophyll and aerosol measurements on the
    first VIIRS instrument due to issues with the Integrated Filter
    Assembly (IFA). Using the current IFA, aerosol will be degraded from
    original levels of performance measurements but will still be at
    requirement specification, so ocean color will be the only measurement
    greatly impacted. Because of this limited degradation of capabilities
    and the risk reduction nature of the NPP mission, the NPOESS Executive
    Committee (EXCOM) directed the NPOESS Integrated Program Office (IPO)
    to: Fly the first sensor on NPP with the existing IFA, accepting the
    existing performance degradation for that mission; and resolve VIIRS
    IFA problems before flying it on NPOESS C1.

                               NPOESS LAUNCH DATE

        Question. What is your degree of confidence that the first NPOESS
    launch date will be met and if your confidence is high, why?
        Answer. There is a high degree of confidence that the NPOESS 2013
    launch date will be met. The confidence is derived from program metrics
    which at this time show all program segments remain on schedule.

                       NPOESS--VIIRS CONTINGENCY PLANNING

        Question. What are the contingencies if VIIRS continues to have
    problems?
        Answer. The Integrated Program Office (IPO) has developed a plan,
    with the prime contractor, which established an achievable delivery
    schedule in advance of the April 2009 commitment with margin to that
    date. The IPO monitors that margin daily. In addition, the PEO holds
    bi-weekly executive reviews of the Visible/Infrared Imager/Radiometer
    Suite (VIIRS) status with the contractors and government leadership to
    ensure appropriate focus is placed on this critical sensor program. We
    believe these steps will allow the IPO to contend with future issues
    regarding VIIRS.

                  NPOESS--CROSS TRACK INFRARED SOUNDER ISSUES

        Question. What is the status of the other critical instrument, the
    Cross Track Infrared Sounder, that was having problems?
        Answer. Following the frame failure in 2006, the frame was
    redesigned and all Cross-track Infrared Sensor (CrIS) components were
    inspected and fixed, as needed. The CrIS unit has passed its vibration
    testing and is in its final thermal vacuum tests. At this time, the
    instrument is expected to be delivered in mid-June 2008, well in
    advance of its August 2008 need date for spacecraft integration.

                        NPOESS--COST AND SCHEDULE GOALS

        Question. Can we reasonably expect the program to stay within the
    new cost and schedule goals?
        Answer. Although the NPOESS program is undertaking the most complex
    operational environmental satellite system ever built by the United
    States; the program expects to deliver within its restructured budget
    and schedule goals. The cost estimate provided at the time of the June
    2006 Nunn-McCurdy certification used to establish the restructured
    budget reflected the results of an intense independent review of the
    Program's technical requirements and associated costs. The Integrated
    Program Office (IPO) has based the restructured NPOESS program budget
    and contract on the independent cost estimate developed by the
    Department of Defense Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG). The CAIG
    estimate takes into account the technical, schedule, and cost risk
    remaining on the program to ensure adequate resources are available to
    fully respond to the ``unknown unknowns'' that are continuous
    challenges to any major development.

                           NOAA IN THE GULF OF MEXICO

        Question. Although NOAA's 2009 budget request boasts a $213 million
    increase, it yet again continues to short-change the Gulf of Mexico. I
    am disappointed that NOAA has continually underfunded weather
    infrastructure, research, and fish and habitat growth in the Southeast.
    The Gulf Coast has severe weather events, we have fishing disasters, we
    have underutilized research capabilities just like everyone else, yet I
    see no money in this budget to help the people of the Gulf receive any
    improvement in the dedication of services from NOAA.
        What will it take for NOAA to make the Gulf of Mexico and the
    southeast a priority?
        Answer. NOAA has a diverse mission ranging from managing fisheries
    to predicting severe weather. The Administration's request provides for
    a balanced set of priorities that sustains core mission services while
    also addressing our highest priority program needs. As part of that
    mission, NOAA's fiscal year 2009 budget request continues to fund many
    ongoing efforts in the Gulf of Mexico and southeast region. For
    example, the request includes $74.2 million in support of fisheries
    research and management, habitat conservation and restoration, and
    fisheries enforcement; $5 million to support the Gulf of Mexico
    Alliance for increased regional collaboration to enhance the
    environmental and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico; and $7.4
    million for continued operations of the three National Marine
    Sanctuaries in the region. In addition, the fiscal year 2009 request
    includes $19.5 million in new increases across NOAA for hurricane
    modeling improvements, research, and operations, which contributes to
    NOAA's overall spending of over $300 million a year for hurricane
    warning and forecast efforts throughout the southeast.

                    WEATHER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SOUTHEAST

        Question. When will the Southeast receive state of the art NEXRAD
    radars and Advanced Weather Interactive Systems that are in other parts
    of the country?
        Answer. NEXRAD radars were installed at the Weather Forecast
    Offices (WFO) in the Southeast United States during the mid-1990s. As
    with the rest of the United States, the NEXRAD radars in the Southeast
    are all part of the same service configuration; they all go through the
    same technology refreshes every several years. Since 1996, AWIPS has
    been utilized not only in the Southeast but at all of the WFOs across
    the United States. As with the NEXRAD program, all AWIPS are part of
    the same service configuration and are on the same technology refresh
    cycle. NWS appreciates the support it has received from members of
    Congress with these programs and because of this support we have been
    able to keep these programs state of the art.

                         FREE TRADE AND SHRIMP IMPORTS

        Question. Recently, the Administration has called for expanding
    free trade agreements with Latin America, particularly with Colombia
    and Panama. In fact, last week you led a delegation to Colombia to
    discuss a U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The expanded
    agreements would eliminate tariffs on American exports and provide
    duty-free access for American agricultural commodities. However, many
    people along the Gulf Coast are still concerned about Latin America's
    agricultural exports, particularly that of farmed shrimp. Shrimp
    imports from Latin American countries continue to rise despite
    confirmed antidumping activities that your Department investigated.
        Has your department examined Colombia and Panama's shrimp export
    activities prior to these recent trade discussions, and if so what were
    your findings?
        What protections are in place for the U.S. industry?
        Answer. The Office of the United States Trade Representative
    reports no shrimp-related trade issues with Panama or Colombia--not
    before, during, or after the FTA negotiations with these countries. In
    2007, Colombia exported shrimp (of various product types) to the United
    States at a value of $12.9 million. During the same year, Panama
    exported shrimp (of various product types) to the United States at a
    value of $36.7 million.
        Brazil and Ecuador are the countries in Latin America in which the
    Department issued antidumping (AD) orders on frozen warmwater shrimp
    imports to the United States. In order to comply with the WTO panel
    decision regarding the Department's ``zeroing'' methodology, the AD
    order on frozen warmwater shrimp imports from Ecuador was revoked on
    August 15, 2007. According to U.S. import data, Brazil did not export
    any warmwater shrimp in 2007 that would be subject to the AD order. We
    reviewed the harmonized tariff code and found that no tariffs or quotas
    exist for shrimp imported from Colombia or Panama except for food
    preparations that include shrimp as an ingredient. As a result, the
    Free Trade Agreement extension to Colombia or Panama would have no
    visible effect on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery.

              INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS

        Question. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
    ``ICANN'', is responsible for making policy concerning the Internet's
    global address system. While I support the idea of the Internet being
    managed by a non-government entity, I have become aware that ICANN has
    been pushing very hard to sever its ties completely from the
    Department. I have also heard from industry officials who have raised
    concerns that while ICANN makes decisions that have the potential to
    affect billions of dollars in commercial transactions, the organization
    lacks an effective mechanism for redress by companies affected by those
    decisions.
        Do you think it is wise to allow ICANN to sever all of its ties to
    the Department?
        Answer. The Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the Department of
    Commerce and ICANN will not be terminated before its September 2009
    expiration as was suggested in ICANN's submission to the Notice of
    Inquiry (NOI) issued by the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA). The JPA required the Department of Commerce to
    conduct a mid-term review of progress achieved on each ICANN activity
    and responsibility contained in the JPA. NTIA, on behalf of the
    Department, conducted this mid-term review which included a
    solicitation of public comments through the NOI and a public meeting.
    NTIA received 171 comments, the majority of which did not support early
    termination of the JPA. All comments to NTIA's NOI can be found at the
    following link: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/
    jpamidtermreview.html.
        Question. Do you think ICANN is a mature enough organization to
    handle this enormous responsibility on its own?
        Answer. On April 2, 2008, NTIA issued a statement on the mid-term
    review summarizing that the record demonstrates general consensus that:
    (1) ICANN is the appropriate technical coordinator of the domain name
    and addressing system (DNS) and has made significant progress in
    several key areas; and (2) important work remains to increase
    institutional confidence through implementing effective processes that
    will enable long-term stability, accountability, responsiveness,
    continued private sector leadership, stakeholder participation,
    increased contract compliance, and enhanced competition.
        As previously stated in the ``U.S. Principles on the Internet's
    Domain Name and Addressing System,'' the Department of Commerce remains
    committed to taking no action that would have the potential to
    adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS.
        NTIA's statement on the JPA can be found at the following link:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.pdf.
        Question. Do you think it would be wise to release ICANN from its
    contractual obligations before redress mechanisms are in place?
        Answer. As noted above, important work remains for ICANN in order
    to increase institutional confidence through implementing effective
    processes that will enable long-term stability, accountability,
    responsiveness, continued private sector leadership, stakeholder
    participation, increased contract compliance, and enhanced competition.
    The Department of Commerce strongly encourages all stakeholders to work
    with ICANN to address these issues and others that may be of concern,
    including redress mechanisms.

                                GOES-R OVERSIGHT

        Question. Not only are there serious issues with NPOESS, there are
    serious failures of the Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellites Program (GOES-R). While this program has been restructured
    and finally seems to have some management controls in place, I am
    disappointed with the revised program plan. When I compare the new
    goals with the program's original prospects, I see that the plan has
    lost 2 of the 4 planned satellites, has added 2 years to the
    development cycle, and has a cost increase of $800 million.
        Answer. There have been no identified failures with respect to the
    GOES-R program. GOES-R has recently completed Program Definition and
    Risk Reduction (PDRR), a phase where requirements are traded against
    design concepts, cost and schedule in order to formulate appropriate
    scope, cost and schedule prior to major procurements.
        At completion of the program's work, independent reviews of cost
    estimates, program business organization and technical structures were
    performed successfully. Only at the completion of program work and
    independent validation does NOAA consider a program ready for initial
    baseline which occurs at Key Decision Point (KDP). The GOES-R Program
    passed KDP in January 2008 when the Secretary of Commerce delegated the
    authority to proceed to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
    Atmosphere.
        Satellite acquisitions cannot be accurately baselined until after
    the developing contractor is formally onboard. NOAA uses the
    Preliminary Design Review (PDR) as the formal milestone since it
    contains all necessary factors to accurately establish a cost and
    schedule baseline.
        Question. How are responsibilities for this program divided between
    NOAA and the Department?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce retains ultimate authority for
    the GOES-R program. On December 21, 2007, the Department delegated
    Milestone Decision Authority for GOES-R to the Under Secretary for
    Oceans and Atmosphere (the NOAA Administrator). With this delegation,
    however, the Department set forth a number of requirements that ensures
    its ability to conduct appropriate oversight of the program. The
    Department has responsibility and approval authority over the ground
    segment acquisition strategy and complete authority over the budget
    through the annual budget formulation process. The Program also reports
    ongoing progress on a quarterly basis to the Department of Commerce
    Assistant Secretary for Administration/Chief Financial Officer. The
    Program has also begun providing the Deputy Secretary a bi-weekly
    status. There is also a Department of Commerce Attorney on site at the
    GOES-R Program Office as the Program Legal Counsel. NOAA's Program
    Management Council (PMC) is NOAA's primary oversight body for the GOES-
    R program. At monthly program reviews, the program provides an update
    of its status and provides detailed explanations of technical and
    budget issues and risks. The Department also has insight into the PMC
    activities and routinely sends representatives to observe PMC meetings.
    The PMC is chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and
    Atmosphere.

                           GOES-R KEY DECISION POINT

        Question. How did you ensure that the recent GOES-R Key Decision
    Point to proceed was based on complete and accurate information?
        Answer. A number of independent bodies reviewed the program before
    the Key Decision Point (KDP) decision was made. An Independent Review
    Team (IRT) of senior satellite acquisition experts (with over 250 years
    of combined satellite acquisition experience) reviewed the program
    starting in 2006. The IRT's November 2007 assessment determined the
    program, with its contracts divided into flight and ground segments,
    was technically and programmatically ready to proceed into the next
    acquisition phase. An Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) review was deemed
    sufficiently close to the Program Office Estimate to validate the
    probable cost of the program. These were independent bodies. Within the
    Department of Commerce and NOAA, numerous reviews were conducted
    leading up to the KDP decision and all decision makers were satisfied
    that the program had provided complete and accurate information and
    that the program was indeed ready to proceed.

                         GOES-R COST AND SCHEDULE GOALS

        Question. Can we reasonably expect the program to stay within the
    cost and schedule goals identified in the President's fiscal year 2009
    budget request?
        Answer. For a two satellite program, we are confident the program
    can be executed within the requested funding and schedule profile,
    assuming the planned budget profile in the President's fiscal year 2009
    budget request.

                           FISH PROTECTION PRIORITIES

        Question. The NOAA budget proposes to spend $10 million on 79
    Atlantic salmon. That is $130,000 per fish and a 92.3 percent increase
    for this program. While I support programs that assist fish
    populations, and I want to support this program, I am at a loss why
    there is not a similar program to assist the Gulf of Mexico and its
    large variety of fish, shrimp and oyster populations that are stressed
    and need assistance. Looking at your budget request, I see no new money
    or resources that are dedicated to gulf coast fisheries or to gulf
    coast research.
        How much do we spend on any one species of fish in the Gulf?
        Answer. The Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment
    Committee reports that 1,480 adult salmon returned to U.S. rivers in
    2006. Of this total, 79 adults were counted as returns to the Gulf of
    Maine distinct population segment (DPS) and 1,044 adults were counted
    on the Penobscot River. The Gulf of Maine DPS was listed as endangered
    in 2000 and is composed of small coastal rivers in Maine. The 2006
    Status Review recommends that the Gulf of Maine DPS be expanded to
    include the large rivers in Maine (Penobscot, Kennebec and
    Androscoggin). It is important to note that these are adult counts only
    and are not population assessments. A full population assessment with
    totals for all life stages (adults, fry, parr, smolts, post smolts) is
    not available at this time.
        Because of the sheer number of fish, it is not feasible to estimate
    NMFS' spending on a per fish basis for any one species of fish in the
    Gulf. However, the budget does provide $74.2 million specifically for
    Gulf of Mexico fishery activities--a 6 percent increase over the fiscal
    year 2008 enacted level.
        Question. How much do we spend per fish on Pacific Coast Salmon?
        Answer. NMFS does not prioritize funding on a per fish basis. The
    funds requested are not to save the existing fish, generally, the fewer
    the fish the more critical the need. Requested funding is an investment
    in the future to ensure that the number of Pacific Coast Salmon will
    increase--and that we will eventually be able recover ESA listed
    Pacific Coast Salmon to a sustainable level, and delist them. Section
    4(f) of the Endangered Species Act requires NOAA to develop and
    implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of all
    endangered or threatened species. These plans lay out activities
    necessary to recover the species and provide an estimated cost to
    accomplish these recovery tasks.
        Question. What is the justification for a 92.3 percent increase for
    this program?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 funding amount will allow NOAA to
    focus conservation and recovery actions on supporting listed Atlantic
    salmon populations as required under the Atlantic Salmon recovery plan
    and re-establishing extirpated populations by addressing habitat needs
    in key watersheds historically used by Atlantic salmon that span five
    New England States. NOAA will use the additional Atlantic salmon funds
    to restore connectivity to fragmented habitats to enhance recovery of
    Atlantic salmon on an ecosystem basis. Priority will be given to
    projects that support listed populations to restore connectivity and
    recovery of ecosystem functions for the benefit of Atlantic salmon and
    all diadromous species in New England. Collaborative efforts will also
    be used to prioritize projects funded with the increase. Projects will
    likely include dam removals, fish passage, stream restoration, and
    reduction in sedimentation to salmon spawning areas. This increase will
    allow NOAA to fund 25 additional projects each year, which will open
    approximately 230 stream miles annually for use by Atlantic Salmon.

                                 DATA SECURITY

        Question. In September 2006, in response to media and Congressional
    requests for information on laptops lost or stolen during the previous
    5 years, the Department reported the loss or theft of 214 Census Bureau
    laptop computers. The Commerce Inspector General reported that the
    missing laptops contained sensitive information that could be recovered
    with tools easily available on the Internet.
        How will the Census Bureau ensure that the systems involved in the
    decennial census, including the handhelds or even a paper census,
    provide adequate protection of the sensitive data collected?
        Answer. The Census Bureau understands the great responsibility it
    has to ensure the public that the information it provides is protected
    to the greatest extent possible. As an outgrowth of the DOC Inspector
    General's report in 2006 the Bureau has looked at security controls
    implemented in all of its systems to ensure that they meet Federal IT
    security requirements and afford the level of protection to which the
    public should expect.
        Specifically for the Decennial 2010 Census, the Census Bureau has
    worked to ensure that its mobile computing devices afford the best
    protection possible while still allowing for flexibility and ease of
    use. We have also begun to prepare processes and procedures to better
    track and account for paper forms that will be used during the
    Decennial operations.
        All laptops used during the Decennial Census will have full disk
    encryption installed. This will render the information on the laptop
    virtually useless to unauthorized individuals in the event a laptop is
    lost or stolen. In addition to the full disk encryption, users will be
    required to enter a unique user name and password to access the laptop.
    The laptop will have anti-virus software installed to prevent infection
    and possible spread of malicious code.
        The Hand Held Computing devices (HHC) will also employ technical
    security controls to ensure the data collected is protected in
    accordance with Federal IT security requirements. These devices will be
    protected with similar controls as implemented on the laptop with some
    specific differences based on the device and intended use. These
    additional controls include the use of biometrics (fingerprints) that
    must be scanned in order for the user to gain access to the device and
    the applications. In addition, the HHC is run using a specific mode
    (Windows Mobile 5.0--Kiosk Mode) which provides the ability for the
    program to control the applications and the user interface. This
    prevents the device from executing unnecessary or vulnerable
    operations. The HHC has had a number of capabilities which could
    introduce vulnerabilities either removed or blocked at the factory. The
    application monitors processes running on the HHC as well as critical
    registry settings; with this control, processes that are not authorized
    are unable to run. If critical system-level settings are found to be
    changed, they are automatically reset to the proper value.
        Data collected is stored on a removable SD (sometimes called a
    Flash) drive. The data is encrypted using a NIST-approved encryption
    product which ensures that the data could not be read on another device
    if the SD card is lost or stolen.
        All communications containing sensitive information between the
    Field, Decennial Offices and the Data Processing Centers (DPC) are
    across secure communications paths that use NIST-authorized encryption.
        Paper presents a more difficult problem by its nature and the sheer
    volume which it will be present in the Decennial Census. The Census
    Bureau is responding to this challenge by increasing its awareness and
    training at the Field level as well as implementing checks with each
    shipment of paper to track its progress from start to finish. Careful
    records of paper shipments will be kept to make sure that in the event
    a package or set of paper forms is lost or misplaced, there is an
    accurate record of exactly what was lost, the circumstances surrounding
    the loss, and actions taken once the loss is discovered.

                                 DATA SECURITY

        Question. The 2010 Census will require the hiring of thousands of
    temporary employees. Can you offer this Committee your assurance that
    the background checks for these employees will be fully completed
    before they are invited into homes of millions of Americans?
        Answer. In the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses, the Census Bureau
    used Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) name checks to determine the
    suitability of all applicants for temporary Census jobs (most work for
    8 weeks or less). There was virtually no criminal activity by temporary
    Census workers in 1990 or 2000. Accordingly, as part of the cost
    estimates prepared for the 2010 Census, we again assumed we would use
    this method to conduct background checks on all temporary workers.
    Although Executive Order 8914 requires that all newly hired federal
    government be fingerprinted within 14 days of beginning work, this
    Order also specifically authorizes fingerprint exemptions for temporary
    workers. The Census Bureau continues to study various operational
    approaches for conducting background checks, including risks and cost
    implications.

                        HANDHELD TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

        Question. After several discussions with the Census, it has become
    clear that the Census entered into the contract for 2010 Census data
    collection before the Census was actually certain of what the
    requirements for such a system would be. It is rare that when given an
    unknown, that the costs come in below the estimates.
        Did the Census Bureau enter into a data collection contract knowing
    that it would cost more than expected?
        Answer. We did not enter into this contract knowing that costs
    would be higher than expected. The final bids of all vendors for the
    contract were similar, and all were relatively close to the independent
    government cost estimate prepared by the MITRE Corp.
        Regarding the level of requirements known at contract award, early
    in the decade we believed our experienced Census Bureau staff could
    develop and deploy the handheld computers for use in the 2010 Census.
    These staff did produce the solutions we tested in both the 2004 Census
    Test and 2006 Census Test. Although we were able to develop and use the
    devices well enough to determine that we could conduct field data
    collection on them, by 2004 we had concluded that we did not have
    sufficient expert resources in house to do this for the 2010 Census, so
    we decided to contract this effort to the private sector. At the time
    we prepared the RFP for the FDCA contract, our strategy was to supply
    high-level functional requirements to the contractor on award, and then
    to determine final detailed requirements based on what we learned from
    the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, and the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal.
        Thus, at the time of contract award in March 2006, both the Census
    Bureau and the contractor were fully aware this strategy would mean a
    tight schedule for requirements development, system design, system
    development, and deployment. The initial requirements strategy at that
    point was to develop remaining requirements in a two-step process.
    First, based on results from the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, we would
    provide detailed Dress Rehearsal requirements for our major operations.
    Then, based on lessons learned from the Dress Rehearsal, we would make
    adjustments to those detailed requirements for 2010 Census operations,
    as well as develop the detailed requirements for those operations that
    could not be included in Dress Rehearsal (e.g., enumeration in Puerto
    Rico; enumeration in remote areas).
        The contract was awarded in April 2006--less than one year before
    the first major application was needed for the Dress Rehearsal Address
    Canvassing operation. We knew this was a very aggressive schedule, and
    to mitigate some of this risk, all of the final vendors for the
    contract were required to develop a prototype of the Address Canvassing
    device so that, upon award, they would already have initial development
    underway. However, after contract award, it became clear that the
    contractor's funding needs by fiscal year differed from what the Census
    Bureau had assumed in its lifecycle cost estimate for the contract. In
    particular, the contractor stated they needed more of the overall
    contract funding earlier in the cycle, including fiscal year 2006.
    Because the Congress had already appropriated funds for fiscal year
    2006, and the President had already made his request to the Congress
    for fiscal year 2007, the Census Bureau had limited flexibility to
    address these funding issues directly. In response, the Census Bureau
    reprogrammed some funding to the FDCA contract, and a re-plan was
    developed which, among other things, delayed and extended software
    development into seven increments. Thus, this re-plan added additional
    risk to the overall development plan and strategy that the Census
    Bureau thought was manageable.

                        HANDHELD TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

        Question. When did the contractor ask for a finalized set of
    requirements?
        Answer. At the time of contract award in March 2006, both the
    Census Bureau and the contractor were fully aware the initial
    requirements development strategy would mean a tight schedule for
    software development, system design, system development, and
    deployment. The initial requirements strategy at that point was to
    develop remaining requirements in a two-step process. First, based on
    results from the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, we would provide detailed
    Dress Rehearsal requirements for our major operations. Then, based on
    lessons learned from the Dress Rehearsal, we would make adjustments to
    those detailed requirements for 2010 Census operations, as well as
    develop the detailed requirements for those operations that could not
    be included in Dress Rehearsal (e.g., enumeration in Puerto Rico;
    enumeration in remote areas).
        In mid-November of 2007, however, facing a delayed, scaled-back
    dress rehearsal, and early 2010 Census operations not too far behind,
    the Harris Corporation requested that the Census Bureau deliver the
    final 2010 Census requirements by November 30, 2007 so that they could
    conduct a re-plan to align scope, schedule, and cost. These
    requirements were to include: Operations not planned in Dress
    Rehearsal, known defects in the operations, the de-scoped Dress
    Rehearsal requirements, as well as any clarifying requirements from
    those operations planned for Dress Rehearsal. We did deliver the final
    change requirements for Address Canvassing (the first major Census
    operation that Harris is participating in) by November 30, and in early
    December, negotiated with Harris to deliver final requirements by
    January 16, 2008.

                         DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

        Question. For the last 7 years, the Inspector General has noted
    that the Department has a material weakness in its information
    technology (IT) security because of problems with its certification and
    accreditation (C&A) process. I understand that several Department
    systems have recently been compromised.
        What is the Department doing to improve the C&A process so the
    material weaknesses can be resolved?
        Answer. Since fiscal year 2001 when the system certification and
    accreditation (C&A) material weakness was first reported, a deadline of
    one year was set for its resolution. Because of the short timeframes,
    efforts mainly focused on completing C&As instead of improving their
    quality. It is the poor quality of the C&A packages that caused the
    material weakness to continue. To that end, an OCIO/OIG joint strategy
    has been developed to incorporate realistic milestones, take measurable
    steps, and build consistent and repeatable C&A practices. We have
    established a 24-month schedule to meet these commitments, with the
    following significant milestones:
      --Standard assessment cases can promote consistency and improved
            security for the Department's IT systems. Bureaus will use the
            examples to develop system specific assessment cases that will
            be used during security control assessments associated with
            certification and continuous monitoring by May 2008.
      --The C&A package documents the security posture of a system as a
            snapshot in time, but continuous monitoring must be performed
            to ensure that appropriate adjustments are made to security
            controls and the system security plan as changes to the
            information system and external environment occur. OCIO will
            develop Department-wide continuous monitoring policy and
            guidance to help achieve consistency and compliance. The
            planned completion date for this guidance is June 2008. As part
            of its independent Federal Information Security Management Act
            (FISMA) reviews of C&A packages and security control
            assessments, OIG will identify controls that have not been
            adequately assessed and recommend that they be assessed during
            continuous monitoring. OIG will later review continuous
            monitoring activities for those systems to determine whether
            appropriate actions were taken. OIG will also assess compliance
            with the continuous monitoring policy and guidance when it
            becomes available. This work will be performed on an ongoing
            basis as part of our fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009
            FISMA reviews.
      --The Information Systems Security Line of Business (ISSLoB)
            initiative requires that agencies use a designated FISMA
            automated tool to standardize tracking and reporting. The
            Department has begun to implement the Justice Department's
            Cyber Security Assessment and Management (CSAM) tool to
            standardize the C&A process and documentation as well as
            conduct compliance reviews. CSAM will be implemented in two
            phases--the management information inventory phase, which will
            provide consistent security records for IT investments, is
            scheduled for September 2008; full implementation, including
            conversion of existing packages, is scheduled for June, 2009.
      --IT security compliance is one of the Department's highest
            priorities. To ensure this effort is on track, both OCIO and
            OIG will brief progress at the Department's Senior Management
            Council (SMC) on a quarterly basis. We will also brief the CIO
            Council on a quarterly basis.
        Question. The Inspector General recently reported that only 1 of
    the 16 system security officers at Census is an IT security specialist.
    What are you doing to ensure there are enough qualified IT security
    professionals to protect the Department's many sensitive systems and to
    oversee the work of its IT security contractors?
        Answer. The attraction and retention of experienced IT Security
    Officers is a challenge. The insufficient number of individuals
    proficient in IT security has been raised in various government and
    private-sector organizations. Experienced IT security professionals are
    not easy to come by, and the Department must compete in the market
    place for these skills.
        In 2007, the Departmental CIO worked with Office of the Secretary
    Information Technology Review Board, CIO Council, and Commerce
    Information Technology Review Board. Discussions regarding the
    increasing threat environment and escalating requirements resulted in
    an increase in the fiscal year 2009 budget for IT security. Part of
    this budget is set aside to address training and certification of our
    IT security personnel.
        Census continues to actively address building a robust IT security
    staff. The Census Bureau has taken steps to address this problem area
    by supplementing its limited staff resources through the use of highly
    qualified contractors. These additional skilled resources, together
    with the adoption of new and improved processes, have resulted in a
    great improvement in the Census Bureau's ability to assist the system
    owners, authorizing officials, and Information System Security Officers
    (ISSOs) in understanding and carrying out their information security
    responsibilities.
        Over the past two years, we have seen a dramatic increase in
    security-related activity throughout the Federal government. Heightened
    threat levels, as well as a need to strengthen the overall IT security
    program, have led the Census Bureau to review its budget and consider
    future increases, as well as a plan of action to improve the Division
    Security Officer/Information System Security Officer (DSO/ISSO)
    program. The Census Bureau is considering options for significantly
    increasing staffing to support the IT Security Program. More
    specifically, the Census Bureau is studying ways to provide resources
    to the office so that it can provide more advice and guidance to senior
    executives and all other roles relating to IT security. This includes
    training and support to ensure that authorizing officials, system
    owners, and DSO/ISSOs are performing their roles properly.
        Further, the Census Bureau hired MITRE Corporation to conduct an
    independent organizational assessment of the Census IT Security Office
    (ITSO). The assessment was to identify strengths as well as areas for
    improvement in the ITSO management, communications, processes, and
    structure. The analysis generally found that, despite many challenges
    in today's Federal IT security environment, the ITSO has significantly
    improved information security at the Census Bureau over the past few
    years. Based on MITRE's recommendations, the ITSO developed a five-year
    strategy to address the findings of the assessment and other gaps in
    the program, to include strengthening the role of the DSO/ISSO. The
    ITSO is currently conducting a gap analysis of the DSO/ISSO role
    structure and intends to recommend a plan of action to the Census
    Bureau Executive Staff in June 2008.

                        NOAA'S FLEET MODERNIZATION PLAN

        Question. Mr. Secretary, over the past several years this Committee
    has supported and funded new Fisheries Survey Vessels for NOAA's fleet.
    These vessels provide a valuable service to this county, and the aging
    ships they replace deserve retirement. However, these fishery vessels
    represent only a fraction of NOAA's fleet. NOAA also has hydrographic
    and oceanographic research vessels, some of which are well past their
    prime. We need to do more to support the officers, crew and shore
    support staff that keep these vehicles working well past their prime.
        When will this Committee receive a long-term fleet modernization
    plan that covers the entire NOAA fleet?
        Answer. NOAA's Ship Recapitalization Plan has been drafted and is
    currently undergoing Administration clearance.

                               LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN

        Question. A number of members have raised a concern about a lack of
    funding for the Lake Pontchartrain Restoration Program which would
    provide funding which would help restore and preserve the estuarine
    areas. Tell us whether this is a priority of NOAA and what NOAA is
    doing to assist Lake Pontchartrain.
        Answer. The Lake Pontchartrain Restoration Program is important to
    NOAA. The current research conducted has provided NOAA a better
    understanding of the water quality, critical habitats, biological
    resources, and contaminant sediments, thus benefiting those living on
    the Lake's shores. These research and education efforts contribute to
    NOAA's priority of habitat conservation and restoration. NOAA
    recognizes the need for such projects as they preserve nursery habitats
    for fisheries and protects and buffers coastlines. In fiscal year 2008,
    NOAA will provide approximately $500,000 to support the Lake
    Pontchartrain Restoration Program.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                FISHERIES RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT FUNDING LEVELS

        Question. I have heard from fishermen in my state with concerns
    about the level of NOAA funding for Fisheries Research and Management
    in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus. Effective management of our fisheries
    depends on sound science.
        Will funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget allow for the stock
    surveys necessary to ensure sustainable management of Alaska's
    fisheries and the fisheries of the nation?
        Answer. Based on the fiscal year 2009 President's request, we
    estimate that we would allocate $57.1 million for the Alaska Fisheries
    Science Center (AFSC), an increase of $2.7 million compared to the
    fiscal year 2008 level. In addition, the 2009 President's request
    restores funding for core survey and monitoring activities that were
    not included in the passage of the 2008 enacted budget.
        While additional funds for survey activities may be available, due
    to increased charter and fuel costs, it is unlikely that the total cost
    of all bottom trawl and acoustic surveys needed in fiscal year 2009
    will be realized. The AFSC would prioritize the acoustic surveys for
    pollock, and the Bering Sea bottom trawl surveys as top priorities.
    Restoration of the Aleutian Islands survey, cancelled in fiscal year
    2008, would not be possible at the 2009 funding levels. Likewise, the
    Gulf of Alaska slope survey would be cancelled and a portion of the
    Gulf of Alaska shelf survey would likely be scaled back.

                            MSRA IMPLEMENTATION--IUU

        Question. Can you give me an update on the progress the Department
    is making toward implementing the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act, specifically with respect to ending overfishing and addressing the
    problem of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing?
        Answer. Under the international provisions of the MSRA, the
    Secretary of Commerce is required to take action to combat illegal,
    unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing activities. The fiscal year
    2009 President's budget request includes a total request of $2.6
    million for international cooperation and assistance activities to
    combat IUU fishing. Of this amount, $1.5 million is for consultation
    with nations that have been identified as having vessels engaged in IUU
    fishing and engage in capacity building activities with developing
    countries. The above figure also includes $1.1million for the Law
    Enforcement program to support the MSRA requirement to strengthen
    international fisheries enforcement by providing additional
    infrastructure and personnel to monitor imports of fish and fish
    products into the United States through collaboration with enforcement
    entities in other federal agencies and foreign governments.
    Furthermore, the Secretary of Commerce is required to produce a
    biennial report to Congress which lists countries the United States has
    identified as having vessels engaged in IUU fishing and to certify
    whether identified nations have taken appropriate corrective action to
    warrant receipt of a positive certification. The absence of steps to
    address these IUU fishing activities may lead to prohibitions on the
    importation of certain fisheries products into the United States and
    other measures.
        In January 2008, the NMFS Office of International Affairs released
    a progress report on the status of implementation of the MSRA
    international provisions. This report summarizes efforts to combat IUU
    fishing around the world and can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
    msa2007/.
        In preparation for the first biennial report, which is due to
    Congress in January 2009, NMFS has begun to collect information the
    agency can use to identify nations engaged in IUU fishing activities.
    To help acquire this information, on March 21, 2008, NMFS published a
    notice in the Federal Register that solicited information from the
    public regarding nations whose vessels are engaged in IUU fishing and
    bycatch of protected resources. The information request has been
    circulated broadly within constituent groups.
        NMFS is drafting a proposed rule for the identification and
    certification of nations whose vessels are engaged in IUU fishing or
    bycatch of protected living marine resources. We hope to have the rule
    available for public comment this summer. In preparation for the
    development of the proposed rule, NMFS published an Advanced Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking in June 2007, and the agency held several public
    meetings in July 2007 to solicit public comments on this process.
        NMFS is also undertaking projects that will address IUU fishing and
    bycatch of protected living marine resources all around the world, with
    a focus at present on Central America and West Africa. These projects
    include workshops to provide technical assistance on the adoption of
    bycatch mitigation technologies and to improve enforcement. The
    enforcement activities focus on the development of effective legal
    frameworks and the implementation of improved monitoring, control and
    surveillance (MCS) programs.
        The United States continues to serve as Chair of the international
    MCS Network. In addition, we are also continuing to collaborate with
    various countries to address pelagic longline sea turtle bycatch
    through the use of circle hooks and we have collaborated with the U.S.
    Navy in partnership programs aimed at providing development assistance
    in Latin America and West Africa.
        The NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is working closely with
    enforcement entities, with other federal agencies and foreign
    governments, to gather intelligence data on IUU fishing activities and
    trade in IUU fish and fish products. NOAA OLE is also developing its
    capability to analyze this intelligence data to create intelligence-
    based products to improve the detection and intercept IUU fish product
    entering the United States.

                     ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTINGS IN ALASKA

        Question. I am concerned about Endangered Species Act petitions for
    species in Alaska. In addition to the current listings for Stellar Sea
    Lions, there are proposed listings for Cook Inlet Beluga Whales and
    ribbon seals before the Department of Commerce. Decisions on these
    listing could have huge consequences for development in my state.
        Would increased funding for research in this area improve NOAA's
    ability to make scientifically supported decisions on these listings?
        Answer. NOAA must render an ESA listing decision based on the best
    available scientific and commercial data information. More research
    will likely reduce scientific uncertainty and assist NOAA's ability to
    determine how to recover the species if they are listed.

                  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION FUNDING

        Question. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget includes a 51
    percent decrease in funding for the Economic Development
    Administration. How will this reduction impact the Department's ability
    to assist economically distressed communities?
        Answer. EDA will maintain its mission to ``lead the federal
    economic development agenda by promoting innovation and
    competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in
    the worldwide economy,'' to the best of its ability, regardless of
    EDA's budget funding levels. The agency will continue to assist
    distressed communities through its grant investments and the agency's
    ``soft assets'' such as sharing best practices and technical expertise
    with communities.
        The fiscal year 2009 funding request is based on budget priorities
    to help balance the federal budget. In a difficult budget environment,
    the Administration has made tough choices. EDA has a flexible and
    scalable nature--we can ``ramp up'' operations, as well as ``ramp
    down'' based on available funds.

                               DIGITAL TRANSITION

        Question. As the nation prepares for the transition to digital
    television, I am concerned that there is no focus on the special needs
    of rural American when implementing the converter box program. I am
    particularly concerned that customers are not being properly educated
    about needing a pass through converter box if their communities rely on
    low power or translators for their broadcasting.
        What is the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration doing to address this concern?
        Answer. To minimize confusion to viewers of low-power stations,
    NTIA has been working closely with organizations representing low-power
    and translator stations to communicate effective messages to consumers.
    First, the materials consumers receive in the envelope with their
    coupons identify which converter boxes will pass through analog
    signals. This information enables consumers to determine on their own
    which retail outlets stock these analog pass through boxes. Second,
    NTIA has added information about the low-power issue to list of
    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the Coupon Program website
    www.DTV2009.gov. This information includes a list of low-power and
    translator stations by location to help consumers determine, first,
    whether they receive service from one of these stations and, if so,
    whether they need to consider purchasing a pass through converter box.
    NTIA also identifies other options for viewers of low-power and
    translator stations, such as buying a low-cost splitter, which enables
    viewers to use any of the certified converter boxes to view programs
    broadcast in analog and digital.
        NTIA is also working expeditiously to ensure that low-power
    operators in rural areas have resources to assist them with the
    transition in a timely fashion. On March, 5, 2008, NTIA sent a letter
    to all licensees of Class A, low-power and translator stations with a
    fact sheet they could use to inform their viewers about the digital
    transition. The letter also included information about the Coupon
    Program and listed of all approved converter boxes that included analog
    pass through.
        The letter also included additional information about two NTIA
    grant programs to assist low-power facilities. The Low-Power Television
    and Translator Digital-to-Analog Conversion Program currently provides
    $1,000 to eligible low-power stations that must purchase a digital-to-
    analog conversion device to convert the incoming digital signal of a
    full-power television station to analog for transmission on the low-
    power station's analog channel. To date, NTIA has awarded 232 grants
    under this program. Applications will be accepted until February 17,
    2009.
        Of course, stations that operate at less than full power will
    eventually convert to digital broadcasts. The Low-Power Television and
    Television Translator Upgrade Program established by Congress directs
    NTIA to assist this effort through a program that provides $65 million
    for necessary equipment upgrades to stations in eligible rural
    communities. To implement this program in a timely manner, a technical
    correction to the program authorization is required to permit the
    agency to begin making funds available during fiscal year 2009. On
    April 24, 2008, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation favorably reported S. 2607, which would effectuate this
    technical correction. NTIA will continue to work with the Federal
    Communications Commission, industry and the broadcast community to
    assist low-power television stations and their viewers during the
    transition to digital broadcasting.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    Thursday, March 13, at 10 a.m., when we will take testimony
    from the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) and the Director of the National Science
    Foundation (NSF).
        [Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., Thursday, March 6, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    March 13.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2009

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senator Mikulski.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    STATEMENT OF HON. DR. MICHAEL GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning. Today the Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, and Science will come to order.
        Today the subcommittee will hear from the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator, Dr.
    Michael Griffin, about the NASA budget request and its
    priorities. This is Administrator Griffin's fourth appearance
    before the CJS Subcommittee and we feel that we have a very
    good, productive relationship with both him and his team.
        There are many issues facing NASA and there is also good
    news. And we look forward, as we talk with NASA, about its
    tremendous history.
        This year we honor important milestones in America's space
    program. It is the 50th anniversary of NASA's creation. It is
    the 25th anniversary of when Dr. Sally Ride became the first
    American woman in space. But we want to be sure that NASA is
    not an agency with a great history, but with a great future.
        We regard this year as a year of transition. We say this is
    a year of transition because this time next year we will have a
    new President, but whatever we do for this year's appropriation
    for fiscal year 2009 will be the operating budget for the
    President's first year for the space program. So we have got to
    get it right as the new President comes in. So as the chair
    this year, I want to make sure we put the right resources in
    the right places in the checkbook to make sure America's space
    program remains number one in the world.
        When I looked at the President's budget for NASA, I was
    disappointed. I regarded it as stagnant despite the advocacy
    both from the agency and externally. The President's budget
    request is $7.6 billion. This is only $300 million above the
    2008 omnibus level. This 1.8 percent increase does not even
    keep up with inflation when one simply looks at rising energy
    costs. Science is held steady at $4.4 billion, and though it
    does include launch plans for the decadal study, it is only 5
    of the 17 priorities.
        Of deep concern to this subcommittee are the cuts in
    aeronautic research. It is cut by $65 million, for a total of
    $447 million. We feel that aeronautics is so crucial to the
    future of America's aerospace industry. And once again,
    regrettably, there is no additional funding to help pay back
    NASA for the cost of returning the Shuttle to flight after the
    terrible accident a few years ago. And it also perpetuates a 5-
    year gap between the Shuttle's return in 2010 and the launch of
    Orion and Ares in 2015.
        So we are worried about lost opportunities and we want to
    restore those opportunities and keep America's space program
    number one. We continue to face challenges from other
    countries. We know China is on the rise with its capability and
    its intent. Russia is always there, and we do not see this like
    a war for space, but we do say who is going to be the premier
    space agency. We want the United States to continue to lead the
    way not only for national prestige and honor, also not only for
    national security reasons, but the fact that we believe that
    our values, as we became the first in space, were that space
    belongs to the world and does not belong to a single nation.
        Anyway, coming back to where we are, I will continue in my
    fight, joining with Senators Shelby and Hutchison, to fight
    again this year to add the $1 billion to deal with the cost
    that was incurred in returning to flight after the Columbia
    accident. It should not be a question of whether we should or
    should not. It is just a question of doing it.
        We are also going to remember the original Augustine
    Commission which says we need to have a balanced space program
    of human space exploration, a reliable space transportation
    system, and investments in science and also investments in
    scientific research.
        For science, the budget request of $4.4 billion is what the
    President requested. Science at NASA is guided by decadal
    reports prepared by the National Academy of Science. It also
    guides this subcommittee. These decadals are road maps for
    NASA. Science at NASA is something that is so important because
    it saves lives, saves the planet, and creates jobs for the
    future.
        So I am puzzled why the science budget has been flat-funded
    for this year and for the next 5 years. We need to maintain our
    very important commitment to Earth science and the role that it
    plays in global warming. Missions like Ice, Clouds, Land
    Elevation Satellite (ICESat) and the tropical rainfall
    measurement mission (TRMM) measure and monitor the world's ice
    sheets and rain forests. We also need to have science that
    takes us into new breakthrough thinking like a great telescope
    like Hubble whose life we will extend and also the James Webb
    telescope. If you liked Hubble, you are going to be crazy about
    the James Webb telescope and what it will do for those
    advancements.
        Again, aeronautics. In 1998, the aeronautics budget at NASA
    was $1.5 billion. Today it is less than $500 million. Every
    commercial aircraft flying today uses technology developed by
    NASA. We must maintain this leadership, and we see, as we
    travel the world, how competitive aerospace is becoming.
        The budget request for the Space Shuttle is $3 billion. It
    calls for 10 more flights to the Space Station by 2010 and one
    flight is reserved to service the Hubble telescope. Retiring
    the Shuttle and transitioning the workforce will be major
    challenges for NASA. The United States cannot afford to lose
    our science and engineering talent. Therefore, we need to look
    at what will be our employment plan.
        As always, no matter what we do, the safety of our
    astronauts has to be number one. The budget request for
    exploration is $3 billion. It is over $600 million above 2008,
    and this subcommittee, chaired by both myself and Ranking
    Member Shelby are absolutely committed to the goal of returning
    U.S. astronauts to the Moon and maintaining a presence there.
    We estimate that it will cost $16 billion to build Ares and
    Orion. While this is a significant investment, we again
    continue to be disturbed by the gap of almost 5 years between
    the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the launch of Orion and
    Ares. I want to know what we can do, as we engage in our
    conversation, to minimize the time gap and minimize the impact
    on the workforce and what is our path forward.
        The Space Station is $2 billion, $200 million above the
    omnibus level. It is a national laboratory. We must keep our
    international commitments. We need to make sure we finish the
    station and we also need to continue to have access to the
    Shuttle which goes to our partnership with the Russians and the
    commercial orbital transportation services (COTS) program. I
    fully support the COTS program which is funded at $170 million.
        We have a tough road ahead as we put together our bill. It
    will be the intention of the committee to have our bill
    completed before the Memorial Day recess so that we can be
    ready to fly our space ship, the CJS bill.
        So having laid that groundwork, we are going to turn to
    Administrator Griffin.
        But I want the record to show that Senator Richard Shelby
    is not here because his duties as the ranking member of the
    Banking Committee have him on the floor. He is the lead ranking
    member on moving the bill to deal with our terrible, terrible
    housing and foreclosure crisis. Senator Shelby must be on the
    floor, but we assured him his views would be presented here. We
    will submit his statement and questions for the record. He has
    questions about the future of robotic missions to the Moon, the
    NASA education program, the gap in human space flight, and
    issues related to accountability and stewardship. I too share
    those questions. Without objection, we will put these in the
    record and I will proceed.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby

        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Dr. Griffin, thank you for joining us today. This is an important
    hearing because it gives us an opportunity to discuss the significant
    role of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
    its fiscal year 2009 budget proposal.
        NASA's proposed budget is $17.6 billion. This is a $300 million, or
    1.8 percent, increase over the fiscal year 2008 funding level. This is
    a sizeable sum considering the funding constraints that the Federal
    Government faces, yet it still does not begin to provide enough for
    NASA to do all of the critical missions it has been asked to do.
    Therefore, the Committee continues to be posed with many difficulties
    as we try to develop a sound budget for NASA.
        The budget reflects funding choices that have been made by the
    Administration to achieve the goal of returning to the Moon, providing
    a $357 million increase for the Exploration account.
        However, without overall growth in NASA's base budget, this
    translates to either little growth or even serious cuts in funding for
    other critical missions and activities. The budget keeps science
    funding flat for years to come, as well as proposing serious reductions
    in aeronautics and education programs.
        The proposed budget continues to force the development and
    operation of manned vehicles to compete with science and education for
    limited funding, making balancing NASA's budget increasingly difficult.
        When the President proposed his vision for returning to the Moon,
    he outlined a funding plan that showed what it would take to continue
    our leadership in space exploration. Yet, the funding levels that were
    initially proposed have never been requested by the Administration. The
    shortfall for NASA has been estimated to be up to $4 billion. This,
    coupled with serious budget constraints faced by this subcommittee,
    have made it challenging, if not nearly impossible, to provide NASA
    with the money it needs to carry out its critical missions.
        Last year, through the leadership of Chairwoman Mikulski, the
    Senate attempted to alleviate some of NASA's budget constraints by
    approving an additional $1 billion. This funding would have allowed
    NASA's exploration programs to continue without massive cuts to science
    and aeronautics accounts. Further, it would have helped NASA's budget
    recover from the effects of the Columbia shuttle disaster. However,
    these efforts were met by opposition within the Administration and
    ultimately thwarted.
        Dr. Griffin, you have commented in the past that NASA cannot do all
    it is asked to do with the funding provided. Yet, when more funds are
    proposed, the cooperation from those in the Administration have been
    painfully absent.
        While the NASA budget clearly cannot move forward without more
    funding, the fiscal year 2009 budget does stays the course for the work
    NASA is currently doing. It contains some interesting pieces that will
    help further our understanding of the solar system and our own Moon. A
    proposed new outer planets flagship mission and the upcoming Hubble
    servicing mission will enhance the world class science that NASA does
    every day.
        The plan has been laid out, and now NASA is doing its best to
    implement it. Accomplishing the vision for exploration must keep moving
    forward.
        I am particularly pleased to see that the Administration has seen
    the wisdom of flying a robotic lunar precursor mission and the benefits
    that can be achieved in doing such a mission. The National Research
    Council indicated that this type of mission would be beneficial in
    their lunar science report and I look forward to discussing further how
    this mission will be implemented by NASA.
        As we continue to discuss the future of NASA, it is important to
    remember that NASA's know-how not only allows us to reach beyond Earth,
    but also directly impacts our daily lives.
        Scientists at Marshall Space Flight Center developed software that
    clarifies and refines image processing to allow us to view clear, new
    images of the Sun. The software adjusts and corrects computer and video
    images for zoom, tilt and shakiness, giving us the ability to review
    the Sun in a whole new way. Yet, this capability has applications far
    closer to home. This technology is now being used in countless criminal
    cases to assist our law enforcement in solving crimes.
        Last month, a young female student at Auburn University was
    kidnapped and murdered. Through the expertise of the U.S. Marshal's
    Service, the killer's image was captured in a grocery store
    surveillance video where the victim's debit card was used. The
    Marshal's Service sent the surveillance images to Dr. David Hathaway at
    Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville where an image enhancement
    program was used to clear the grainy surveillance photos. It was these
    images that were later used to capture the killer.
        And this type of work does not stop here. It is my understanding
    that Dr. Hathaway has also been assisting America's Most Wanted in the
    Lane Bryant Chicago murders. He is to be commended for being such an
    asset to the law enforcement community and NASA is to be lauded for
    their role in developing this vital technology.
        We could spend all morning talking about the many successes of
    NASA, and yet we are here today to discuss the difficulty in balancing
    a budget that will fund only a fraction of the potential this agency
    could achieve.
        The continual budget strains will require that we all work together
    as partners to ensure NASA can meet its many objectives.
        It is my hope that the implementation of the President's vision can
    be accomplished while still maintaining the capabilities that NASA has
    developed in other mission areas.
        The Administration did not leave many crumbs on the table, but I
    look forward to discussing how we may find a solution that keeps all of
    NASA's activities moving forward. While it will be a difficult task
    given the demands for funding across all of the agencies funded in the
    CJS bill, I look forward to working with you, Dr. Griffin, and the
    Chairwoman to ensure that NASA receives the funds necessary to achieve
    the nation's goals.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR GRIFFIN

        Senator Mikulski. So, Dr. Griffin, we are going to turn to
    you and go with your testimony.
        Dr. Griffin. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Mikulski.
    I too regret Senator Shelby could not be here, but please be
    assured we will answer his questions for the record as
    expeditiously as possible.
        I want to thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
    our fiscal year 2009 budget request of $17.6 billion. Rather
    than delving into the details of the budget request itself, I
    would like to use this opportunity to explain the rationale
    behind the strategic choices made with America's investment in
    our Nation's space program.
        Our annual budget represents less than six-tenths of 1
    percent of the $3.1 trillion Federal budget, a small yet
    strategic investment in our Nation's leadership on ``The New
    Frontier'', as President Kennedy characterized our Nation's
    first halting steps and then giant leaps beyond Earth.
        When strategically applied, America's investment in NASA
    also benefits our Nation by spurring development in new,
    innovative technologies and advancing our scientific
    understanding of the Earth, the Sun, the solar system, and the
    rest of the universe in ways that we can hardly fathom today,
    but which inspire us to learn more. Space exploration also
    contributes to our national security in a very deep way by
    enabling us to build closer ties with other nations and
    societies and by inspiring young people to study difficult
    subjects--mathematics, science, and engineering--so that the
    next generation of Americans remains at the cutting edge of
    technical progress. What we do is rocket science. The conquest
    of air and space is one of mankind's most interdisciplinary
    activities. The capabilities we bring into being help not only
    to build a better future for aviation and space; they benefit
    our entire society.
        This year, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of NASA's
    creation by the Congress with the passage of the National
    Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, a strategic national
    response to the historic achievements of the Soviet Union in
    the arena that President Kennedy would label, so aptly, ``this
    new ocean.'' It was this foresight in recognizing the strategic
    importance of space which inspired and challenged a now aging
    generation of Americans, my generation, to study math, science,
    and engineering so that we could take part in this great
    enterprise.
        However, as we celebrate NASA's 50th anniversary, I must
    also tell you that I am worried. Senator Mikulski, in absentia
    members of the committee, I am concerned that our Nation is now
    facing a silent Sputnik, a moment when many other countries are
    racing for a new high ground of innovation while our own
    advantages--technological, economic, intellectual--are showing
    signs of wear. While I believe that America's greatest days lie
    always ahead of us, this optimism is misplaced unless we
    recognize our problems, confront them, and strive with
    concerted energy to fix them. We need your help.
        We face many challenges at NASA, but I believe the greatest
    of these is the need to maintain a determined and unified sense
    of purpose as we pursue the tasks before us. Our achievements,
    the things we do that awe the world, do not come cheaply,
    quickly, or easily. Space exploration is not for the faint of
    heart. It is not for those who are easily distracted. It is not
    for those who require instant gratification.
        This year, all of us in the space community took a moment
    to recall where we were just 5 years ago when the Space Shuttle
    Columbia disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana, and to reflect
    upon the ultimate sacrifice our astronauts made while pursuing
    our Nation's endeavors in space, and to take cautious, sober
    pride in the progress that we have made in the short time since
    then.
        At great expense, and with considerable technical
    difficulty, we returned the Space Shuttle to flight, and we are
    using it today to complete the assembly of the International
    Space Station (ISS). In the last few months, we have installed
    the European Columbus laboratory, the first of three components
    of the Japanese Kibo module, and the Canadian Dextre robotic
    arm. We have 10 more assembly and logistics missions ahead of
    us, plus one final Shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble
    space telescope scheduled for later this year. Barring
    unforseen circumstances, I believe we are well positioned to
    complete station assembly by 2010, and then retire the Shuttle
    in accordance with the thoughtful recommendations of the
    Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB).
        It took a crisis, the Columbia tragedy, for our Nation's
    leaders in the White House and Congress to recognize the truth
    of the damning assessment of the CAIB. Quoting, ``The U.S.
    civilian space effort has moved forward for more than 30 years
    without a guiding vision.'' The President and Congress honored
    the sacrifice of the Columbia crew, with a new civil space
    policy noteworthy for the logical progression of its goals and
    its clarity of purpose. We must not allow that clarity to fade
    with the passage of time. We must not let it just slip away.
        So, we are honoring America's prior commitments to our
    international partners on the station. We have begun the
    necessary steps, now turning into longer strides to develop a
    new generation of capabilities with the Orion crew exploration
    vehicle and the Ares family of rockets to replace the aging
    Space Shuttle. We are using the market provided by the ISS to
    help bring about U.S. commercial space transportation
    capability with our COTS program that you mentioned.
        By being good partners on the ISS and with an armada of
    Earth and space science missions, through good times and in
    bad, it is my belief that other countries will want to join the
    United States in returning to the Moon, exploring Mars and
    other planets and moons of our solar system, and discovering
    what lies beyond. There is little we cannot do if we pursue
    this common vision together.
        However, please do not confuse my desire for international
    collaboration with a willingness to rely upon others for
    strategic capabilities. Today we are dependent upon the Russian
    Soyuz. This dependence upon Russia for such a critical
    capability is not an option we would choose, but it is where we
    are today. In fact, we must seek an exception to the Iran,
    North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) because we
    have no immediate replacement for the Shuttle and no other
    recourse if we wish to sustain the ISS.
        Since that is a fact--and I prefer to deal in facts--I am
    glad that in today's world we have the option to avail
    ourselves of Russian crew transportation capabilities. But we
    did not get here by design. We got here by default. And as
    Admiral Gehman observed in the CAIB report, ``. . . previous
    attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle
    represent a failure of national leadership.'' That failure has
    had and will have costs. The most important of those costs are
    not measured in money or in jobs, though both of these measures
    have been much in the news, but rather in terms of our Nation's
    posture and standing in the world. I will leave it to others to
    assess the larger consequences of the failure of American
    leadership, to which Admiral Gehman referred.
        So let me be perfectly clear. While we have made
    significant progress in the past 5 years, the journey ahead is
    not easy. It requires courage on the part of those who must
    carry it out and commitment from those in leadership who would
    see it succeed. To reach this point in the aftermath of
    Columbia has required extraordinary self-sacrifice by everyone
    involved, and even more will be required in the years ahead.
    Transition from Shuttle to Orion and Ares, the next generation
    of constellation systems, while utilizing the Space Station
    with its six-person crew, and sustaining it with United States
    and commercial and foreign transportation services, is NASA's
    greatest management challenge.
        We must not make promises we cannot keep. We must carefully
    consider any new missions to ensure that they are affordable.
    We must set priorities. We must focus upon the next steps:
    finishing the Station, building a new space transportation
    system to replace the Shuttle, and then venturing out again
    beyond low Earth orbit. We must keep always before us the real
    reasons why we explore this New Frontier, and the consequences
    of allowing our hard-earned leadership on that frontier to slip
    away.
        None of this will be finished in a single year, a single
    presidential administration, a session of Congress, or even in
    the lifetime of anyone here today. It is a challenge for
    generations to come, but one which requires leadership on our
    part today on behalf of those generations to come.
        In the immortal words of President Kennedy, ``Now is the
    time to take longer strides.''
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Dr. Griffin.
        [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
    2009 budget request for NASA. The President's budget request for NASA
    is $17.6 billion, a 2.9 percent increase over the net budget authority
    enacted for 2008, along with a steady, five-year runout commensurate
    with inflation. This increase demonstrates the President's commitment
    to funding the balanced priorities he set forth for the Agency in space
    exploration, Earth and space science, and aeronautics research. We are
    making steady progress in achieving these goals. I ask for your
    continued support as you consider the President's fiscal year 2009
    budget request for NASA.
        When I testified before this Subcommittee last year, I spoke about
    the Administration's balanced priorities for our Nation's civil space
    and aeronautics research goals as set forth by the Congress and the
    President. NASA's mandate is clear, and NASA's authorizing legislation,
    as well as the level of funding appropriated to NASA in fiscal year
    2008, tell me that Congress broadly endorses the balanced set of
    programs the Agency has put forward in this era of limited budget
    growth.
        I have said this in other forums, but it warrants repeating here:
    at present funding levels, NASA's budget is sufficient to support a
    variety of excellent space programs, but it cannot support all of the
    potential programs we could execute. No plan or level of funding can
    fully satisfy all the many constituencies we have. Balanced choices
    must be made. But they cannot continually be remade and revisited if
    there is to be steady progress toward our common, defined objectives.
        As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board noted, and as
    stakeholders acknowledged in ensuing policy debates, it would have been
    far worse to continue with the prior lack of strategic direction for
    human space flight, to continue dithering and debating and inevitably
    widening the gap between Shuttle retirement and the availability of new
    systems. Until and unless the Congress provides new and different
    authorization for NASA, the law of the land specifies that we will
    complete the International Space Station, retire the Shuttle, design
    and build a new spaceflight architecture, return to the Moon in a
    manner supporting a ``sustained human presence,'' and prepare the way
    to Mars.
        We are doing those things as quickly and efficiently as possible.
    System designs for the early elements have been completed, contracts
    have been let, and consistently solid progress is being made with a
    minimum of unexpected difficulty. True, the progress might be slower
    than all of us would prefer, but applying resources in the right
    direction, irrespective of pace, is always productive--and we are doing
    that. The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Orion Crew Exploration
    Vehicle, as they are presently taking form, are the building blocks for
    any American future beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO).
        Given that this endeavor will be our first step beyond LEO for
    crewed spacecraft since 1972, I believe that bypassing the Moon to
    venture directly into deep space--a proposal some have suggested
    revisiting--poses unacceptable risk. Returning to the Moon and
    consolidating the gains to be made thereby will set us properly on the
    path toward Mars. I ask for your continued support and leadership as we
    progress toward achieving these worthy National objectives.
        Before I highlight key elements of NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget
    request, I would like to summarize NASA's initial fiscal year 2008
    Operating Plan. The initial Operating Plan provides aggregate funding
    of $17.3 billion, at the level of the President's fiscal year 2008
    request. Pursuant to the rescission of $192.5 million in NASA
    unobligated balances in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
    (Public Law 110-161), aggregate funding in NASA's fiscal year 2007
    Operating Plan is reduced by $185.2 million, and prior year balances
    are reduced by $7.2 million. Implementation of direction in Public Law
    110-161 has resulted in a total reduction of $620.9 million in planned
    NASA activities, consisting of the rescission of $192.5 million,
    offsets for programmatic augmentations totaling $345.2 million, and
    site-specific Congressional interest items totaling $83.2 million.
    Finally, in accordance with Congressional direction, NASA has
    established seven Agency appropriations accounts in the fiscal year
    2009 budget request. As a result, the budgets for NASA's programs and
    projects are requested in terms of direct costs, not the additional
    indirect costs associated with operating the Agency's field Centers,
    assuring safety and mission success, and Agency management and
    operations. The direct budgets will continue to reflect labor, travel,
    and procurement costs associated with each program and project. The
    indirect costs are now budgeted solely within the Cross Agency Support
    account, and not in the NASA programs and projects. We will strive to
    ensure that these changes are transparent to our stakeholders.
        I am appreciative of the action by the Committees on Appropriations
    and Congress in providing regular fiscal year 2008 appropriations for
    the Agency at the level of the President's request, including
    essentially full funding for the Orion, the Ares I, the Space Shuttle,
    and the International Space Station. This total fiscal year 2008
    appropriations level, with some adjustments within the total, will
    enable NASA to meet critical priorities in accordance with the
    direction from the Congress and the President.

             HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NASA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

        I am pleased to report that the fiscal year 2009 budget represents
    a substantial step forward in responding to the recommendations of the
    National Research Council's (NRC) first decadal survey of Earth
    Science, released in January 2007. The five-year budget runout requests
    $910 million for priorities enumerated in the report. Funding will
    support development of two Decadal Survey new mission priorities--the
    Soil Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP) mission scheduled to launch as
    early as 2012, and the Ice, Clouds, land Elevation Satellite II (ICESat
    II) scheduled to launch in 2015--as well as formulation of three
    additional decadal survey missions.
        Working closely with NOAA, we also are making significant progress
    toward restoring climate sensors that had been removed from the tri-
    agency National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
    System (NPOESS) in 2006. The fiscal year 2009 budget request of $74
    million for NOAA supports the addition of a Clouds and the Earth's
    Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument onto NASA's NPOESS Preparatory
    Project (NPP) satellite, set to launch in 2010; instrument development
    and ongoing analyses to identify a suitable satellite platform for
    hosting the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS); and development of
    climate data records. These actions, which will be implemented through
    close coordination between NASA and NOAA, come in addition to the
    inclusion of the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS)-Limb sensor on
    the NPP satellite that was announced earlier in 2007.
        The Agency's fiscal year 2009 budget request also reflects a number
    of exciting developments in the space sciences, including an increase
    in the number of new missions, a new initiative in lunar science and
    initiation of plans for high-priority missions in Astrophysics and
    Planetary Exploration. The fiscal year 2009 request includes an
    increase of $344 million over 5 years for Lunar Science in order to
    better understand our Moon. NASA's Science Mission Directorate, with
    support from the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, is developing
    two small lunar landers, and the Science Mission Directorate is
    initiating a series of new and exciting missions headed to the Moon
    over the next decade. Meanwhile, we are focusing our Mars program after
    2013 on a Mars sample return mission to launch by 2020, and have
    identified funds to initiate development of an outer planets flagship
    mission to be selected in October of this year for launch by 2017. The
    budget also significantly increases Research and Analysis funds in the
    space sciences to gain better value from the missions we are flying,
    and so too, it increases the funding and, therefore, the flight rate of
    our suborbital rocket and balloon research programs in the space
    sciences.
        Our Aeronautics Research portfolio is positioned to address the
    challenges facing the Next Generation Air Transportation System, while
    also developing world-class aeronautics expertise and capabilities.
    Research is aligned with the National Plan for Aeronautics Research and
    Development and Related Infrastructure, approved by the President in
    December 2007. In fiscal year 2009, we will conduct a key test to
    advance our understanding of aircraft aging and durability, and develop
    algorithms to optimize the use of crowded airspace and airports. We
    will continue work on blended-wing-body aircraft, which may reduce fuel
    consumption and emissions, as well as aircraft noise. Additionally,
    NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate continues to strengthen
    partnerships with academia, industry, and other Government agencies to
    accomplish its strategic goals.
        NASA's commitment to its exploration objectives is clearly
    reflected in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. As assembly of the
    Space Station nears completion, NASA will increasingly focus its
    efforts on continuing the development of the Orion Crew Exploration
    Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. This budget request maintains
    Orion initial operational capability in March 2015, and full
    operational capability in fiscal year 2016, though we are striving to
    bring this new vehicle on line sooner. In fiscal year 2008, we will see
    the completion of the formulation phase for major elements of the
    Constellation program; both Orion and Ares I will undergo their
    preliminary design reviews. We will conduct the first Ares ascent
    development flight test with the Ares I-X in the Spring of 2009, and we
    will continue to conduct research and develop and test technologies
    through the Advanced Capabilities Human Research and Exploration
    Technology Development Program. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)/
    Lunar Crater Observation Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), an important part
    of NASA's lunar exploration strategy, is on track for launch at the
    beginning of fiscal year 2009. The Agency is also requesting $173
    million to provide incentives for entrepreneurs--from big companies or
    small ones--to develop commercial transport capabilities to support the
    International Space Station. With more than $2.6 billion in NASA funds
    available over the next five years to purchase cargo and crew services
    to support Space Station operations, our objective and strong
    preference is to use these funds to purchase these services from
    American commercial companies wherever possible.
        While I would prefer that the United States have domestic
    alternatives to purchasing crew transport services from Russia, I am
    glad that the Russians are our partners and have such capabilities,
    because the consequences if they were not available are far worse. If
    NASA astronauts were not onboard the Space Station, our National
    Laboratory in space simply would not survive. If there is no Space
    Station, there is no market for the commercial providers we are trying
    to help bring into existence, and our international partnership would
    simply fall apart. So, in order to keep these objectives viable, NASA
    may need to obtain additional crew and cargo transport services from
    our international partners if U.S. commercial services are not yet
    demonstrated and available.
        In the area of Space Operations, NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget
    request will allow us to continue to expand the Space Station, complete
    the supporting truss structure and solar arrays, and deliver the final
    component of the Japanese laboratory. This will round out the set of
    three space laboratories aboard the Station, with one each from the
    United States, Europe, and Japan. In addition, fiscal year 2009 will
    mark another milestone for the International Space Station Program--for
    the first time, the Station will be able to support a full-time crew of
    six astronauts. With three major scientific facilities available to
    them, these larger crews will be busy as Station kicks off a new era in
    microgravity research aboard this National Laboratory in orbit.
    Critical to these achievements, the Space Shuttle is scheduled to fly
    five times in fiscal year 2009. During fiscal year 2009, NASA also
    plans to launch payloads on eight expendable launch vehicles. Fiscal
    year 2009 will also see the consolidation of the Deep Space, Near-
    Earth, and Space Communications networks into a unified Space
    Communications and Navigation (SCaN) architecture within the Space
    Operations Mission Directorate.
        NASA is continuing to transition from the Space Shuttle to new
    Exploration systems, and will need a complement of critical tools and
    authorities necessary for the transformed Agency to execute its
    mission. This transition is the largest and most daunting since the end
    of the Apollo program and the beginning of the Space Shuttle program.
    It dictates that we obtain the authorities needed to ensure sufficient
    support in the future. We hope to discuss the details of these
    legislative requests with Members of Congress in the weeks ahead.
        The remainder of my testimony outlines the fiscal year 2009 budget
    request for NASA in greater detail.

                          SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE

        In 2007, NASA successfully launched four new orbital and planetary
    science missions (THEMIS, AIM, Phoenix, and Dawn), almost 20 suborbital
    science missions, and two major airborne Earth science campaigns. This
    past year also saw the first test flights of the Stratospheric
    Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) 747 airborne infrared
    observatory, as well as the provision of rapid-response airborne remote
    sensing aid to the California wildfire emergencies. In addition, 2007
    was a year of remarkable scientific discovery about the Earth, the Sun,
    the planets and the universe. For example, data from the Ice, Clouds,
    and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), the Gravity Recovery and Climate
    Experiment (GRACE), and other satellites have provided dramatic new
    insights on ice sheet changes in Greenland and Antarctica. The Solar
    TErrestrial RElations Observatory (STEREO) satellites (A and B) have
    provided the first three dimensional images of the sun and the
    structures of the heliosphere. These new 3-D views, along with
    unprecedented observations from Hinode (Solar-B), NASA's Time History
    of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS)
    mission, and the Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) satellite are
    revolutionizing knowledge of the variable Sun and its interactions with
    the Earth. Also, the Cassini spacecraft radar imagery of Titan revealed
    large lakes of methane in Titan's North polar region, indicating a
    hydrological cycle. Finally, a new map provides the best evidence to
    date that normal matter, largely in the form of galaxies, accumulates
    along the densest concentrations of dark matter. Mapping dark matter's
    distribution in space and time is fundamental to understanding how
    galaxies grew and clustered over billions of years.
        NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget request provides $4.44 billion for
    the Agency's Science portfolio to study the Earth, our Sun and its
    heliosphere, our solar system, and the Universe. This funding enables
    NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to start major new missions,
    to increase research and analysis funding, and to operate and provide
    ground support for 55 operating science missions, including 13 Earth
    science mission extensions. It provides support for over 3,000 current
    operating research and analysis grants, while continuing to develop
    high priority missions in Earth Science, Heliophysics, Planetary
    Science and Astrophysics, consistent with the priorities established by
    the NRC's decadal surveys.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget request for Earth Science provides
    $1.37 billion to help us better understand the Earth's atmosphere,
    lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere as a single
    connected system. In addition to 14 operating missions, the request
    includes funding for seven missions in development. The Landsat Data
    Continuity Mission and Ocean Surface Topography Mission (to launch in
    2008) continue the decades-long time series of land cover change and
    ocean surface height data, respectively. Glory targets the impact of
    aerosols on climate. The National Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) paves
    the way for the future national weather system and continues essential
    measurements from the NASA Earth Observing System (EOS), Aquarius, and
    the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), set to launch in 2008. Aquarius
    and OCO will make the first-ever global measurements of ocean surface
    salinity and atmospheric carbon dioxide, respectively. The request
    specifically increases funding for OCO and the Aquarius missions to
    maintain development schedules. The Global Precipitation Measurement
    (GPM) mission will extend the rainfall measurements made by the
    Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) to the global scale. The
    request retains the GPM core mission launch readiness date. With
    respect to Glory, the development estimate included in the fiscal year
    2009 request represents cost growth of more than 30 percent from NASA's
    baseline development estimate, which, under the terms for Major Program
    Activity Reports under Public Law 109-555, will require explicit
    Congressional authorization in the next 18 months to continue.
        The budget request responds to the Earth Science Decadal Survey by
    establishing a funding wedge of $910.0 million over the budget runout
    to initiate five new earth Decadal Survey missions for launch by 2020,
    while continuing to implement seven precursor missions for launch
    between 2008 and 2013. 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.
        The Heliophysics budget request of $577.3 million will support
    missions to understand the Sun and its effects on Earth, the solar
    system, and the space environmental conditions that explorers will
    experience, and to demonstrate technologies that can improve future
    operational systems. The request increases budgets for Sounding
    Rockets, Research Range, and Research and Analysis to achieve a more
    robust level of small payload opportunities. In addition to supporting
    16 currently operational missions, the request supports 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'' that will
    provide new insight on the Earth's ionospheric structure, both of which
    are planned for launch in 2008. In early fiscal year 2009, the Solar
    Dynamics Observatory (SDO) to study the Sun's magnetic field is planned
    for launch, and the Geospace Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) mission
    will begin development. RBSP will improve our understanding of how the
    Earth's radiation belts are formed and how solar output modifies the
    Earth's Van Allen radiation belts. Further, the 5-year budget funds a
    new Solar Probe mission, which has long been sought by the U.S.
    scientific community and is recommended highly in the most recent
    Heliophysics decadal survey.
        The Planetary Science budget provides $1.33 billion to advance
    scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of life,
    and to prepare for human exploration. The budget supports an array of
    eight currently operating spacecraft and rovers traveling to or now
    studying Mercury, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, Saturn, and Pluto, in
    addition to a series of instrument missions of opportunity. The budget
    request augments Lunar Science to include a series of small robotic
    lunar satellites to begin development in fiscal year 2009 and initiates
    an outer planets flagship mission, planned for launch in 2016 or 2017.
    The request includes continuation of funds for all five of NASA's
    operating Mars missions, the development of a Mars Science Laboratory
    for launch in 2009, a Mars Scout mission in 2013, expanding U.S.
    participation on the ESA/ExoMars mission by selecting two instrument
    Missions of Opportunity for study and technology development, a Mars
    mission in 2016. and an increase in Mars research funds. The Mars
    Program has been directed, consistent with National Research Council
    advice, to begin exploring concepts for a Mars Sample Return mission,
    to launch no earlier than 2020. With the New Horizons spacecraft
    continuing on its way to Pluto, the request realigns the New Frontiers
    Program's Juno Mission to Jupiter to be consistent with a 2011 launch
    date, and funds initiation of the next New Frontiers mission. An open
    competitive solicitation for the next mission is planned for release
    near the end of this calendar year. The request continues support for
    the operating Discovery mission and for the development of the new
    Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) Discovery mission, the
    latter of which will use high-quality gravity field mapping of the Moon
    to determine the moon's interior structure.
        The Astrophysics budget provides $1.16 billion to search for
    answers to fundamental questions about how the universe works, how we
    got here, and whether we are alone. The request supports a restart of
    the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) Small Explorer with
    a launch date of no-earlier-than 2011, increases funding for sounding
    rocket payloads, balloon payloads, detector technology and theory, and
    initiates the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) in fiscal year 2009. The
    Astrophysics suite of operating missions includes three Great
    Observatories (Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-Ray Observatory and
    the Spitzer Space Telescope), which have helped astronomers unravel the
    mysteries of the cosmos. The request will support the Gamma-ray Large
    Area Space Telescope (GLAST), which is now planned for launch in May,
    2008, to begin a 5-year mission mapping the gamma-ray sky and
    investigating gamma-ray bursts. It also provides funding for the Kepler
    telescope, which is planned for launch in February 2009 to detect
    planets in the ``habitable zone'' around other stars. SOFIA will begin
    science operations in 2009, significantly earlier than previously
    planned. The request supports development of the Wide-field Infrared
    Survey Explorer (WISE), which will conduct an all-sky survey, and the
    James Webb Space Telescope, which will explore the mysterious epoch
    when the first luminous objects in the universe came into being after
    the Big Bang.

                    AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE

        In 2007, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
    continued to pursue high-quality, innovative, and cutting-edge research
    that develops revolutionary tools, concepts, and technologies to enable
    a safer, more flexible, environmentally friendly, and more efficient
    national air transportation system. ARMD's research also plays a vital
    role in supporting NASA's space exploration activities. ARMD's program
    content and direction is consistent with the National Aeronautics
    Research and Development Policy, as well as the follow-on National Plan
    for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related Infrastructure
    that the President approved on December 21, 2007.
        A primary goal across all of the programs in ARMD is to establish
    strong partnerships with industry, academia, and other Government
    agencies in order to enable significant advancement in our Nation's
    aeronautical expertise. 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. ARMD has established
    over 35 Space Act Agreements with industry partners and more are in the
    works. We have ensured that all Space Act Agreements are negotiated so
    that results of collaborations will be broadly disseminated. To date,
    NASA has selected 346 proposals for negotiation of award through the
    NRA process from more than 70 different universities and 60 different
    companies and non-profits. NASA investment in NRAs will increase
    steadily from fiscal year 2009 ($72 million) through fiscal year 2013
    ($100 million).
        We have also strengthened our partnerships with other Government
    agencies. For example, NASA and the Joint Planning and Development
    Office (JPDO) have established quarterly reviews to ensure close
    coordination, and NASA participates in all major JPDO planning
    activities. In addition, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration
    have developed a joint program plan for the Aviation Safety Information
    Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) effort with well defined roles and
    responsibilities. Also, NASA and the United States Air Force have
    established an Executive Research Council that meets at least twice a
    year to ensure close coordination and collaboration. Lastly, NASA and
    the Army have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate
    research efforts on rotorcraft.
        In fiscal year 2009, the President's budget for NASA requests
    $446.5 million for Aeronautics Research. ARMD is directly addressing
    the fundamental research challenges that must be overcome in order to
    enable the JPDO vision for the Next Generation Air Transportation
    System (NextGen).
        NASA's Airspace Systems Program has partnered with the 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. In fiscal year 2009, NASA's budget
    request will provide $74.6 million for the Airspace Systems Program to
    conduct trajectory analyses for service-provider-based automated
    separation assurance with time-based metering in an environment with
    two to three times capacity and with delay and separation comparable to
    or better than that achieved today. In addition, the Airspace Systems
    Program will develop algorithms to generate robust, optimized solutions
    for airport surface traffic planning and control. These surface models
    will be developed as a basis for the optimized use of super-density
    airports, integrated airport clusters, and terminals where demand for
    runways is high.
        NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program conducts research in all
    aeronautics disciplines that enable the design of vehicles that fly
    through any atmosphere at any speed. The fiscal year 2009 budget
    request, amounting to $235.4 million, will enable significant advances
    in the Hypersonics, Supersonics, Subsonic Fixed Wing, and Subsonic
    Rotary Wing projects that make up the Fundamental Aeronautics Program.
    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 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 multi-disciplinary analysis and
    design, aerothermodynamics, materials and structures, propulsion, aero-
    servo-elasticity, thermal protection systems, advanced control methods,
    and computational and experimental techniques.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget request for NASA's Aviation Safety
    Program is $62.6 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
    NextGen. In fiscal year 2009, the Program will demonstrate aircraft
    engine safety and reliability improvements using advanced sensing
    technologies and new methods for modeling engine gas flow
    characteristics. In addition, ballistic tests will be used to study the
    effect of aging on the impact resiliency of composite fan-blade
    containment structures for aircraft engines. Multiple flight and
    simulation tests will evaluate technologies to protect aircraft during
    hazardous situations. For example, simulations will evaluate
    technologies enabling aircraft to land safely even when flight control
    surfaces are partially damaged or malfunctioning, and flight tests will
    examine forward-looking, multi-frequency radar systems for early
    detection of potential hazardous icing.
        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 2009 budget request for the ATP is
    $73.9 million, which will enable strategic utilization, operations,
    maintenance, and investment decisions for major wind tunnel/ground test
    facilities at Ames Research Center in California, Glenn Research Center
    in Ohio, and Langley Research Center in Virginia, and will support
    specific aircraft and test bed aircraft at Dryden Flight Research
    Center, also in California. ARMD has established the National
    Partnership for Aeronautical Testing with the Department of Defense to
    pursue a coordinated approach to managing DOD-NASA aeronautical testing
    facilities. In fiscal year 2009, ATP will continue to reduce the
    deferred maintenance associated with its facilities and will also
    invest in new test technologies ensuring a healthy set of facilities
    and the new capabilities needed for future programs. In addition, ATP
    plans to continue off-setting the user rates for its facilities through
    the funding of a portion of the indirect costs resulting in competitive
    prices. Simultaneously, the Program will continue to move toward a
    long-term strategic approach that aligns the NASA and DOD facilities to
    meet future requirements with the right mix of facilities and
    appropriate investments in facility capability.

                    EXPLORATION SYSTEMS MISSION DIRECTORATE

        In 2007, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD)
    delivered as promised and will continue to do so in 2008. Major
    development work is underway; contracts are in place, and our future
    Exploration plan is executable. By the end of 2008, ESMD will see its
    first spacecraft launched from the NASA Kennedy Space Center. This
    Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and the Lunar Crater Observation
    Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) will help NASA scout for potential lunar
    landing and outpost sites. Additionally, in 2008, NASA will continue to
    plan how best to transition any needed Shuttle workforce and
    infrastructure to the Constellation program.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget request of $3.5 billion for Exploration
    will support continued development of new U.S. human spaceflight
    capabilities and supporting research and technologies, and will enable
    sustained and affordable human space exploration after the Space
    Shuttle is retired at the end of fiscal year 2010. The budget request
    provides stable funding to allow NASA to continue developing our next-
    generation U.S. human spaceflight vehicles while also providing
    research and developing technologies for the longer-term development of
    a sustained human presence on the Moon. Budget stability in fiscal year
    2009 is crucial to maintaining a March 2015 Initial Operational
    Capability for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares I Crew
    Launch Vehicle. There is minimum flexibility through 2010, so
    Congressional support for budget stability is critical. Additionally,
    NASA will continue to work with other nations and the commercial sector
    to coordinate planning, leverage investment, and identify opportunities
    for specific collaboration on lunar data collection and lunar surface
    activities in support of Exploration objectives.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget request for Constellation Systems
    Program is approximately $3 billion. The Constellation program includes
    funding for the Orion and Ares, as well as for ground operations,
    mission operations, and extravehicular activity projects and a
    dedicated in-house effort for systems engineering and integration. Last
    year, the Constellation program made great strides and it will continue
    to do so in 2008. We have tested real hardware; we have tested landing
    systems; and we have logged thousands of hours in wind tunnels. So far,
    NASA engineers have conducted almost 4,000 hours of wind tunnel testing
    on subscale models of the Ares I to simulate how the current vehicle
    design performs in flight. These wind tunnel tests, as well as NASA's
    first scheduled demonstration test flight for Ares I, known as Ares I-
    X, are scheduled for spring 2009 and will lay the ground work for
    maturing the Ares I final design.
        Constellation has an integrated schedule and we are meeting our
    early milestones. In fact, all major elements of the Orion and Ares
    vehicles were placed under contract by the end of 2007. Currently, NASA
    has civil servants and contractors on board for the Constellation
    program serving at all ten Agency Centers, as well as in more than 20
    States. In 2008, NASA will continue efforts to define the specific work
    the Agency's Centers will perform in order to enable astronauts to
    explore the Moon. Preliminary work assignments covering elements of the
    Altair human lunar lander and lunar surface operations, as well as the
    Ares V, were announced in October 2007.
        During 2007, ESMD completed a series of key project review
    milestones, including a System Definition Review for the Orion project
    in August and for the Ares I project in October. During these reviews,
    each project examined how its proposed requirements impact engineering
    decisions for the functional elements of the system. The Orion and Ares
    I teams are currently assessing design concepts, and are moving toward
    finalized reference designs that meets their requirements. This
    reference configuration will be the starting point for the design
    analysis cycle that leads to Preliminary Design Reviews for the Orion
    and Ares I projects, in turn leading to an integrated stack review by
    the end of December 2008. A Preliminary Design Review is a crucial
    milestone, during which the overall program verifies that the
    preliminary design meets all requirements within acceptable risk limits
    and within the cost and schedule constraints.
        In fiscal year 2009, NASA is requesting $173 million for the
    Commercial Crew and Cargo Program and its associated projects. Full
    funding is essential to maintaining NASA's promised $500 million
    investment in this program to spur the development of U.S. commercial
    space transportation services to and from the Space Station, while also
    providing substantial savings to the taxpayer compared to NASA
    Government-owned and operated capabilities. On February 19, 2008, NASA
    announced that the Agency had signed a Space Act Agreement with a new
    funded partner, Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Virginia.
    Technical progress continues to be made by our other funded partner,
    SpaceX, of El Segundo, California, as well by as several of our
    unfunded partners.
        The Agency's fiscal year 2009 budget request provides $453 million
    for activities in ESMD's Advanced Capabilities theme, which seeks ways
    to reduce the risks for human explorers of the Moon and beyond by
    conducting research and developing and maturing new technologies. In
    2008, NASA's Human Research Program will focus on the highest risks to
    crew health and performance during exploration missions. We also will
    develop and validate technologies that serve to reduce medical risks
    associated with human spaceflight. For example, NASA will continue its
    work to understand the effect of space radiation on humans and to
    develop effective mitigation strategies. During 2008, NASA also will
    continue to research ways to reduce the risks to future explorers.
    Research onboard Space Station will include human experiments, as well
    as biological and microgravity experiments. In 2009, the Advanced
    Capabilities Exploration Technology Development program will conduct a
    range of activities, including testing prototype ablative heat shield
    materials; throttleable Lox Hydrogen engines suitable for a human lunar
    lander; and lightweight life support systems for Orion. The program
    also will deploy and test advanced environmental monitoring systems on
    the Space Station to advance the safety of crewmembers, and will
    continue to test in-situ resource utilization technologies as well as
    life support and cryogenic fluid management.
        In response to Congressional direction contained in the Explanatory
    Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
    (Public Law 110-161), ESMD will fund in 2008 a robotic lander project
    managed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a pathfinder for an
    anticipated network of small science landers based on requirements for
    NASA's expanded lunar science program. The first lander mission is
    planned to fly in 2013-2014. NASA's Exploration Systems and Science
    Mission Directorates will continue to work together combining resources
    to ensure that the goals of the science lander are achieved.
        NASA's LRO and the LCROSS have a planned launch later this year
    from Kennedy Space Center. These dual-manifested spacecraft are in the
    assembly, integration, and test phase and are making excellent progress
    toward launch. The knowledge generated by these missions will enable
    future outpost site selection and new information about resources
    within the permanently shadowed craters at the lunar poles. The LRO/
    LCROSS missions represent NASA's first steps in returning to the Moon.
        Lastly, facility, infrastructure, property, and personnel
    transitions from Space Shuttle to Constellation continue to be a major
    activity. 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. To date, NASA has met all of its
    milestones and disposition targets. This joint effort between the Space
    Operations Mission Directorate and ESMD includes the utilization and
    disposition of resources, including real and personal property,
    personnel, and processes, to leverage existing Shuttle and Space
    Station assets for NASA's future Exploration activities. Formalized
    Transition Boards are working to successfully achieve this outcome. An
    initial Human Spaceflight Transition Plan was developed in 2006. An
    updated NASA Transition Plan, supported by key metrics, is being
    refined and will be released this year.

                      SPACE OPERATIONS MISSION DIRECTORATE

        The Space Shuttle and Space Station programs both enjoyed a highly
    successful and productive year in 2007. The Space Shuttle flew three
    missions during the year, continuing the assembly of the Station and
    expanding its capabilities. The June 2007 flight of Atlantis on STS-117
    added a truss segment and new solar arrays to the starboard side of the
    Station to provide increased power. In August, Endeavour brought up
    another truss segment, supplies, and became the first Orbiter to use a
    new power transfer system that enables the Space Shuttle to draw power
    from the Station's solar arrays, extending the duration of the
    Shuttle's visits to Space Station. On the same mission, STS-118,
    teacher-turned-astronaut Barbara Morgan conducted a number of
    education-related activities aboard the Space Station, inspiring
    students back on Earth and realizing the dream of the Teacher In Space
    Project for which she and Christa McAuliffe trained more than two
    decades ago. In October 2007, Discovery flew the STS-120 mission, which
    added the Harmony node to the Station and featured a spacewalk to
    disentangle a snagged solar array.
        The STS-120 mission paved the way for Station astronauts to conduct
    a series of ambitious spacewalks and operations using the Station's
    robotic arm to move the Pressurized Mating Adapter-2 and Harmony node
    in preparation for the addition of the European Columbus laboratory and
    the Japanese Kibo laboratory in 2008. These spacewalks are particularly
    challenging and impressive, as they are carried out entirely by the
    three-person Expedition crews, without benefit of having a Shuttle
    Orbiter, with its additional personnel and resources, docked to the
    Station.
        NASA continues to expand the scientific potential of the Space
    Station in 2008, a year in which we are delivering and activating key
    research assets from two of our International Partners. In February,
    Shuttle Atlantis delivered the European Columbus laboratory during STS-
    122; the recently completed STS-123 mission featured the delivery by
    Shuttle Endeavour of the experiment logistics module portion of the
    Japanese Kibo laboratory, along with the Canadian Special Purpose
    Dextrous Manipulator, or Dextre. Dextre, the final component of the
    remote manipulator system provided by Canada, will act as the ``hand''
    on the robotic arm, allowing astronauts to conduct operations and
    maintenance activities from inside the Space Station, rather than via
    spacewalks. In May, STS-124 will deliver the pressurized module
    component of the Kibo lab, and in late summer, the crew of STS-125 will
    become the final Shuttle crew deployed to a non-Station orbit, as they
    conduct the last Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission from the
    Space Shuttle. This mission will outfit the telescope with the Cosmic
    Origins Spectrograph and the Wide-Field Camera 3, as well as replace
    components to extend Hubble's operational life.
        The Space Shuttle fiscal year 2009 budget request of approximately
    $3 billion would provide for five Shuttle flights to support assembly
    of the Space Station. This would include the flight of the Japanese
    Kibo laboratory's Exposed Facility, and the delivery of the final
    Station Truss segment.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes about $2.1 billion for
    ISS International Space Station activities, reflecting the presence of
    a permanent six-person crew and three major research facilities aboard
    Station.
        After the Space Shuttle retires at the end of fiscal year 2010,
    NASA will use alternative means to transport cargo and crew to the
    Space Station. The Agency's first choice for such services is domestic,
    commercial capability, the development of which is the focus of the
    Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) effort. ESMD is
    funding the first phase of COTS under the Commercial Crew and Cargo
    Program, which will demonstrate this capability via funded and unfunded
    Space Act Agreements. SOMD will manage the second phase of the effort,
    covering actual cargo--and potentially crew--delivery services to the
    Space Station. Until such time that operational commercial means are
    available for resupplying the Station, NASA will look to its
    international partners to provide cargo resupply capability, much of
    which will be provided as part of the partners' contributions to the
    International Space Station Program. NASA has contracted with Roscosmos
    to provide Soyuz and limited cargo services through the end of fiscal
    year 2011, as permitted under the Iran, North Korea and Syria Non-
    proliferation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-112). NASA is monitoring the
    progress of potential domestic commercial providers to develop cargo
    and crew transportation services to the Space Station, and the Orion
    project is on track to reach its Initial Operational Capability in
    March 2015. The Administration is considering options to maintain a
    U.S. crew presence aboard the Space Station after the retirement of the
    Shuttle and before the advent of Orion. Purchasing crew transportation
    services domestically is NASA's preferred method to meet the needs of
    the Space Station. Another option may be to seek relief from the
    provisions of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Non-Proliferation Act of
    2005 for additional Soyuz services to keep a U.S. crew presence on the
    Space Station until either domestic commercial crew transportation
    services, or Orion, become available. We will keep the Congress fully
    informed of our plans.
        NASA remains focused on, and committed to, flying out the remaining
    Space Shuttle missions safely and completing the assembly of the Space
    Station. Beyond those aims, one of the challenges NASA faces as we
    approach the end of the Shuttle era is the smooth disposition of
    personnel and infrastructure. SOMD and ESMD have been working hand-in-
    hand to ensure that needed skills and facilities are retained and put
    to productive use during the development and operational phases of the
    Orion, Ares I, and Ares V projects. In fiscal year 2009, the Agency's
    transition milestones will include the transfer of Pad 39B and Mobile
    Launch Platform #1 to Constellation, after the Hubble Servicing
    Mission. In addition, the Space Shuttle Program is reviewing whether
    the Space Shuttle Atlantis will be retired in fiscal year 2008 or used
    to conduct existing missions within the planned manifest.
        The Space Flight Support Program's fiscal year 2009 budget request
    of $733 million would help mitigate out-year costs associated with the
    Delta II launch pads. The request also reflects the consolidation of
    the Agency's space communications projects into the Space
    Communications and Navigation Program. Finally, it includes funding for
    the development of two satellites to replenish the Tracking and Data
    Relay Satellite System, planned for launch in 2012 and 2013.

                                   EDUCATION

        The fiscal year 2009 budget request for Education totals $115.6
    million and furthers NASA's commitment to Science, Technology,
    Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. NASA's primary
    objectives for Education are to: (1) contribute to the development of
    the Nation's STEM workforce through a portfolio of initiatives for
    students at all levels; (2) attract and retain students in STEM
    disciplines while encouraging them to pursue higher education that is
    critical to NASA's workforce needs; and (3) engage Americans in NASA's
    mission through strategic partnerships with STEM education providers.
        NASA is committed to ensuring that its future workforce is fully
    prepared to handle a variety of challenging scientific and technical
    careers. NASA's Office of Education encourages student interest in STEM
    through the Agency's missions, workforce, facilities, and innovations
    in research and technology. The fiscal year 2009 budget request
    reflects a balanced portfolio of investments which takes into account
    Congressional priorities, the NASA Strategic Plan, and recommendations
    from the National Research Council, as well as the priorities of the
    education community. NASA Education is the critical link between the
    Agency's scientists and engineers and the education community. NASA
    Education translates the Agency's missions into educational materials,
    services, and opportunities for students and learners of all ages. NASA
    strives to support the role of educational institutions, which provide
    the framework to unite students, their families, and educators for
    educational improvement.
        In 2008, NASA's Office of Education will continue to collaborate
    with Agency Mission Directorates and field Centers to assist educators
    in promoting scientific and technical literacy while attracting and
    retaining students in STEM disciplines and careers. NASA Education will
    also continue its work with other Federal agencies engaged in
    educational activities, along with public and private partners to
    leverage the effectiveness and reach of its efforts.

                              CROSS-AGENCY SUPPORT

        The fiscal year 2009 budget request for activities within Cross-
    Agency Support includes funding for developing and maintaining NASA's
    technical capability including the Agency's vital mission support
    functions. Cross Agency Support provides a focus for managing technical
    capability and Agency mission support functions. This budget area
    consists of three themes: Center Management and Operations; Agency
    Management and Operations; and, Institutional Investments. Cross Agency
    Support is not directly identified or aligned to a specific program or
    project requirement but is necessary to ensure the efficient and
    effective operation and administration of NASA.
        The most significant change is in the area of Agency Management and
    Operations. Agency Management and Operations provides for the
    management and oversight of Agency missions and functions and for the
    performance of many Agency-wide activities. Agency Management and
    Operations is divided into five programs: Agency Management; Safety and
    Mission Success; Agency Information Technology services; Innovative
    Partnerships Program; and, Strategic Capabilities Assets Program.
      --The fiscal year 2009 budget request provides $414.6 million for
            Agency Management which sponsors and supports an executive-
            based, Agency-level functional and administrative management
            agenda. Agency Management delivers policies, controls, and
            oversight across a range of functional and administrative
            management service areas and also provides for independent
            technical assessments of Agency programs. It delivers strategic
            planning services. It assesses and evaluates NASA program and
            mission performance. It sponsors and directs the Institutions
            and Management agenda in procurement, human capital, real
            property and infrastructure, security and program protection,
            diversity, equal opportunity, and small business. Agency
            Management also provides for the operational costs of
            Headquarters as an installation, including salaries, benefits,
            training and travel requirements of the Headquarters workforce,
            as well as the resources necessary to operate the Headquarters
            installation.
      --The fiscal year 2009 budget request provides $163.4 million for the
            Agency's Safety and Mission Success support activities required
            to strengthen and enable the fundamental and robust cross
            checks applied on the execution of NASA's mission. The
            engineering; safety and mission assurance; and health and
            medical independent oversight and technical authority which are
            essential to NASA's success and were established in direct
            response to the Challenger and Columbia shuttle accident board
            recommendations for independent funding of these efforts. The
            Safety and Mission Success program directly supports NASA's
            core values and serves to improve the likelihood for safety and
            mission success for NASA's programs, projects, and operations.
            The Safety and Mission Success program includes the corporate
            work managed by the offices of the Chief, Safety and Mission
            Assurance (including the NASA Safety Center), Chief Engineer
            (including the NASA Engineering and Safety Center), the Chief
            Health and Medical Officer, and the Director of the Independent
            Verification and Validation Facility.
      --The fiscal year 2009 budget request for Agency Information
            Technology services is $163.9 million which encompasses cross-
            cutting services and initiatives in IT management,
            applications, and infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA
            Mission and improve security, integration and efficiency of
            Agency operations. In fiscal year 2009 significant emphasis
            will be placed on consolidation of networks and network
            management, improved security incident detection, response and
            management, further consolidation of desktop/laptop computer
            services, data center assessment for consolidation, and
            application portfolio management leading to consolidation. NASA
            is using an enterprise architecture approach to assess current
            assets, capabilities and costs for services and developing
            requirements, projects and procurements for transition to the
            desired consolidated state. Additionally, the underlying
            infrastructure and systems to instill strong authentication and
            access to information systems in alignment with HSPD-12 will
            progress significantly in fiscal year 2009. Critical work will
            continue under the Integrated Enterprise Management Program to
            improve business processes by minimizing data redundancy,
            standardizing information and electronic data exchanges, and
            processing. Also, NASA will continue participation in several
            Federal E-Government initiatives and Lines of Business to
            improve services to citizens and gain efficiencies across the
            Government.
      --The fiscal year 2009 budget request for Innovative Partnerships
            Program activities is $175.7 million. This program provides
            leveraged technology investments, dual-use technology-related
            partnerships, and technology solutions for NASA. This program
            also facilitates the protection of NASA's rights in its
            inventions and the transfer of that technology for commercial
            application and public benefit. In addition, the Innovative
            Partnerships Program implements NASA's Small Business
            Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
            Programs which seek out high-technology small businesses to
            address key technology needs for NASA. The program also manages
            a Seed Fund to address technology needs through cost-shared,
            joint-development partnerships. The Centennial Challenges
            Program, which is also managed by the Innovative Partnerships
            Program, consists of prize contests to stimulate innovation and
            competition in new technologies for solar system exploration
            and other NASA mission areas. NASA has already benefited from
            Centennial Challenge competitions, and last year awarded
            $450,000 in prize money for the Astronaut Glove Challenge and
            Personal Air Vehicle Challenge. The Innovative Partnerships
            Program also transfers NASA technology for public benefit, as
            documented in NASA's annual ``Spinoff'' publication. ``Spinoff
            2007'' documented 39 new examples of how NASA innovation has
            been successfully transferred to the commercial market place
            and applied to areas such as health and medicine,
            transportation, public safety, consumer goods, homes and
            recreation, environmental and agricultural resources, computer
            technology, and industrial productivity.
      --Finally, NASA is requesting $28 million in fiscal year 2009 for the
            Strategic Capabilities Assets Program, a focused activity
            designed to ensure that critical Agency capabilities and assets
            for flight simulation, thermal vacuum testing, arc jet testing,
            and microgravity flight services are available to NASA missions
            when needed. Strategic Capabilities Assets Program assets are
            also used by other Government agencies, industry, and academia
            to improve the Nation's position in the global market place as
            well as its defense capabilities. The Strategic Capabilities
            Assets Program budget request covers the direct and associated
            costs required to sustain key test capabilities and assets
            including operating staff, preventive maintenance, subsystem
            repairs, and component replacements required to keep the assets
            in ``ready for testing'' condition. Incremental costs to
            conduct specific tests are borne by individual programs and
            reimbursable customers. The Aeronautics Research Mission
            Directorate budget request includes $73.9 million for the
            Aeronautics Test Program (e.g. wind tunnels and flight testing)
            and the Science Mission Directorate budget request includes
            $41.9 million for High-End Computing Capability (e.g. the
            Columbia super computer), which are also managed as Strategic
            Capabilities Assets. Centralized management at the Agency-level
            allows NASA to better prioritize and make strategic investment
            decisions to replace, modify, or disposition these capabilities
            and assets.

                                   CONCLUSION

        NASA has a lot of hard work ahead, but the Agency continues to make
    steady progress in managing its challenges. We are deploying our
    workforce to carry out the great task before us. Last fall, the Agency
    assigned new leadership roles and responsibilities for exploration and
    science missions to NASA's ten field Centers across the country in
    order to help restore the core technical capabilities across the Agency
    as we transition from the Space Shuttle to new capabilities. I ask your
    continued help to ensure that this Nation maintains a human spaceflight
    capability.
        In a short span of years, we have already taken long strides in the
    formulation of strategies and programs that will take us back to the
    Moon and on to Mars and other destinations in our solar system. Indeed,
    a generation from now, astronauts on Mars will be flying and living
    aboard hardware America is funding and designing today, and will be
    building in the near future. This is a heady legacy to which we can
    aspire as we develop the next U.S. human space exploration vehicles.
    The foundation of this legacy will include work we plan to carry out in
    fiscal year 2009.
        As I said earlier in my testimony, NASA is committed to executing
    the exciting programs and projects within the President's fiscal year
    2009 budget request. Having reached a steady state on a balanced set of
    priorities, we now have a sense of purpose to make steady progress
    toward achieving our goals for continued leadership in space
    exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.
        Chairman Mikulski, with your support and that of this Subcommittee,
    we are making the right strategic choices for our Nation's space
    program. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may
    have.

                      PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY BY APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT
                                       [Budget Authority, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                     By theme                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2007       2008      2009      2010      2011      2012      2013
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Science..................................   4,609.9   4,106.2    4,441.5   4,482.0   4,534.9   4,643.4   4,761.6
        Earth Science........................   1,198.5   1,280.3    1,367.5   1,350.7   1,250.9   1,264.4   1,290.3
        Planetary Science....................   1,215.6   1,247.5    1,334.2   1,410.1   1,537.5   1,570.0   1,608.7
        Astrophysics.........................   1,365.0   1,337.5    1,162.5   1,122.4   1,057.1   1,067.7   1,116.0
        Heliophysics.........................     830.8     840.9   \1\ 577.     598.9     689.4     741.2     746.6
                                                                           3
                                              ======================================================================
    Aeronautics..............................     593.8     511.7      446.8     441.8     482.4     486.1     467.7
                                              ======================================================================
    Exploration..............................   2,869.8   3,143.1    3,500.8   3,737.7   7,048.2   7,116.8   7,666.8
        Constellation Systems................   2,114.7   2,471.9    3,048.2   3,252.8   6,479.5   6,521.4   7,080.5
        Advanced Capabilities................     755.1     671.1      452.3     484.9     568.7     595.5     586.3
                                              ======================================================================
    Space Operations.........................   5,113.8   5,526.2    5,774.7   8,872.8   2,900.1   3,089.9   2,788.8
        Space Shuttle........................   3,315.3   3,266.7    2,981.7   2,983.7      95.7  ........  ........
        International Space Station..........   1,469.0   1,813.2    2,060.2   2,277.0   2,176.4   2,448.2   2,143.1
        Space and Flight Support.............     329.2     446.3   \2\ 732.     612.1     628.0     641.7     645.4
                                                                           8
                                              ======================================================================
    Education................................     115.9     146.8      118.6     126.1     123.8     123.8     123.8
                                              ======================================================================
    Cross-Agency Support.....................   2,949.9   3,242.9    3,299.9   3,323.9   3,363.7   3,436.1   3,511.3
        Center Management and Opera-  tions..   1,754.9   2,013.0    2,045.6   2,046.7   2,088.0   2,155.3   2,211.6
        Agency Management and Opera-  tions..     971.2     830.2      945.6     945.5     939.8     950.5     961.3
        Institutional Investments............     223.8     319.7      308.7     331.7     335.9     330.4     338.3
        Congressionally Directed Items.......  ........      80.0   ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
                                              ======================================================================
    Inspector General........................      32.2      32.6       35.5      36.4  ........      38.3      39.2
          Fiscal Year 2008 Rescission  \2\...  ........    (192.5)  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
                                              ======================================================================
          NASA Fiscal Year 2009..............  16,285.0  17,309.4   17,614.2  18,026.3  18,460.4  18,905.0  19,358.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Deep Space and Near Earth Networks Transfer $256 million to SFS in fiscal year 2009.
    \2\ Fiscal year 2008 Appropriation rescinded $192.475 million in prior-year unobligated balances, effectively
      reducing fiscal year 2008 authority. Not included in totals.

    Fiscal year 2008 budgets are the enacted levels per the fiscal year 2008 Appropriation as shown in the Agency's
      fiscal year 2009 Budget Estimates. Totals may not add due to rounding.
    2008 budgets include all direct costs required to execute the programs. Indirect costs are now budgeted within
      Cross-Agency Support.

                          SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

        Senator Mikulski. First of all, I know this was your oral
    testimony, which was more of a rhetorical document than a
    budget statement. So, we will put into the record your full
    testimony to the subcommittee, which I think went into very
    specific detail. We have the written testimony, which I know
    was vetted by OMB and powers that be, and it outlines the
    budget aspects that we want.
        We too agree with your statement that says we must not make
    promises we cannot keep and carefully consider any new missions
    to ensure that they are affordable. Dr. Griffin--this is not
    directed at you, but really your predecessor and the White
    House--I agree with that. So, when they embarked upon the Mars
    mission, for which the Congress was not critical, they never
    gave us any money. So, we are very frustrated that we were
    given an assignment without the money and falling upon us to
    come up with the money.
        So, I would agree with the premise let us not make promises
    we cannot keep and consider the affordability of any new
    missions. Well, we were given a new mission. A promise was made
    just like the promise was made on the Space Station. We got all
    those international partners involved, and now we wonder how in
    the hell are we going to get there. So we are cranky. We are
    not cranky with you, but we are cranky because we keep feeling
    like we are being set up and then it comes to us.
        So we note your question about leadership, but we are not
    in here to finger-point today. We are into pinpointing our path
    forward. But I want to set the record straight, that a promise
    was made to go to Mars, but no money was given to us. The
    Gehman Commission outlined--and it cost NASA $2-plus-billion to
    return to space and return to space in a way that was safe for
    our astronauts, which always needs to be a national obsession.
    And no money back for the replacement costs paralleling the
    Challenger. So those for us are the big issues.
        We went to the Space Station at the request of President
    Bush I and we have sustained that. And we have had difficulty
    paying for it since in two administrations. Now, this one gave
    us a Mars mission without the wallet.
        So we appreciate your observation. We presume it is not a
    lecture. And number three, we are cranky because we keep
    getting missions and no wallet, and I know you must feel the
    same way.
        That takes us, though, to really the heart of what you are
    saying which is a reliable space transportation system. That
    goes to the transportation system to replace the Shuttle
    because without a reliable transportation device, we cannot do
    any of the things, whether it is the return to the Moon or
    beyond.
        Could you share with us because everyone is deeply
    concerned about the gap? I would like to go through some of the
    questions about the gap. I am going to say two things. One,
    colleagues both here and in the House are saying, well, why do
    we not give them more money and close the gap? So, I am going
    to ask if that is a realistic possibility if money were not the
    problem, just with sound engineering principles.
        And then number two, as you know, there are some members in
    the House who are raising the concept of extending the life of
    the Shuttle until 2015.
        So, let us go with acceleration. What could we, putting
    money aside, because I will come back to show me the money
    because that is what this is--can we accelerate or close that
    gap in a prudent way and not just be throwing money at it? And
    then what you think of the idea of extending the Shuttle until
    2015.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, of course, Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
    Let me start out by saying just for the record that if anything
    in my oral statement came across as presuming to lecture the
    Congress, that was not my intent. I was calling for the
    leadership that I know that you know we need and have provided,
    but certainly not lecturing the Congress.
        But to answer the specifics of your questions, with regard
    to closing the gap, at this point with 65 percent statistical
    confidence, we are budgeted to deliver Orion and Ares for
    operational capability to the Space Station in March 2015. We
    have been asked by your colleagues in the Senate, as well as
    your colleagues in the House, if that could be improved. We
    have answered for the record, and I will give you the outlines
    of that answer now. At a cost of about $2 billion total over
    the next couple of years, it would be possible to bring March
    2015 back into, let us say, the late fall of 2013. So we could
    improve the schedule by about 15 to 16 months at this point at
    a cost of $2 billion.
        In general, as a rough guide for your planning, every $100
    million extra that is put into the program improves the
    schedule by just about 1 month. So on the record, that is the
    best we have been able to determine.
        Senator Mikulski. It seems like about $1 billion a year.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am. That is correct. Now, we cannot,
    for any amount of money, get back earlier than the fall of
    2013.
        Senator Mikulski. So using $1 billion as a rule of thumb
    per year, even if we came up with $5 billion--highly unlikely--
    you could not----
        Dr. Griffin. The earliest technically achievable date at
    this point----
        Senator Mikulski. Would be 2013.
        Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Given the water over the dam
    behind us, would be late 2013.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay.

                      EXTENDING THE SPACE SHUTTLE LIFETIME

        Dr. Griffin. Now, in answer to your second question, my
    opinions about extending the lifetime of the Shuttle, my
    opinion is we should not do that. They are founded on several
    different principles. The first is that as I believe we all now
    know and as Admiral Gehman pointed out in the CAIB report, the
    Shuttle is an inherently risky design. We currently assess the
    per-mission risk as about 1 in 75 of having a fatal accident.
    If one were to do as some have suggested and fly the Shuttle
    for an additional 5 years, say, two missions a year, the risk
    would be about 1 in 12 that we would lose another crew. That is
    a high risk. We have elected as a Nation--the administration
    has decided and the Congress has concurred, and I believe that
    concurrence was absolutely correct--that we will complete the
    Space Station. But it is not being done without risk. To fly
    the Shuttle after the Space Station is completed for any
    significant length of time I believe would incur a risk I would
    not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts.
        Now, flying the Shuttle after the 2010 retirement date has
    other effects. It costs about $3 billion a year. You, ma'am,
    referenced just a few moments ago that our request this year to
    fly the Shuttle was $3 billion. I would rather see, if my
    opinion were being sought, extra money made available, if that
    were the case, to accelerate existing systems. If extra money
    were not made available, and the $3 billion had to come out of
    hide--as you mentioned, the return to flight costs of $2.7
    billion was taken out of hide. If that were done again, every
    $100 million that comes out of the new systems extends their
    schedule for 1 month. On the back end of the program, we lose
    1\1/2\ months. So if you delay Constellation by 1 year today,
    in order to fly the Shuttle for another year, then you delay
    Constellation by 1\1/2\ years on the back end. So you do not
    ever narrow the gap. You extend the gap if you fly the Shuttle
    longer.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, that is an important thing. So,
    trying to keep the Shuttle going beyond the current designated
    time is high risk----
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. High expense.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And the very goal we want to have, which
    is not to have a gap, we once more exacerbate.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am.

                                RETURN TO FLIGHT

        Senator Mikulski. I got it.
        Did Admiral Gehman, when he looked at the return to flight
    as part of the review after the accident, look at this
    possibility?
        Dr. Griffin. Well, they did. Around pages 209 and 210 of
    volume I of the CAIB report, they devoted considerable
    discussion to the future of the Shuttle. I happen to have a few
    of those quotes with me. I am given to using them in speeches
    for just these purposes.
        But Admiral Gehman pointed out--and I will quote for the
    record here--``because of the risks inherent in the original
    design of the Space Shuttle''--and I will skip a couple of
    points that do not matter--``it is in the Nation's interest to
    replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means of
    transporting humans to and from Earth orbit.''
        Admiral Gehman also points out that ``there is urgency in
    choosing the design after serious review of a concept of
    operations for human space flight and bringing it into
    operation as soon as possible. This is likely to require a
    significant commitment of resources over the next several
    years. The Nation must not shy from making that commitment.''
        Senator Mikulski. Well, of course, we will look to the
    wisdom of working with their authorizers and you. But based on
    our conversations, both in preparation for this hearing and
    here, I really could not support the extension of the Shuttle
    to 2015.
        What I want to do is, working on a bipartisan basis, see
    what we can do to prudently, both from an engineering and
    technology perspective and from a fiscal perspective,
    accelerate. Look to see if we cannot find the funds to
    accelerate closing the gap and the framework that I believe
    NASA already is thinking about and could do. So, we would have
    a plan A which would be to close the gap to 2013, which in and
    of itself would be pretty terrific. And plan B would be to stay
    the course, which would be the minimum threshold.
        So from my perspective, again, working with Senator Shelby,
    Senator Nelson, Senator Hutchison, those of us involved, really
    the authorizing and so on, our goal would do that. I cannot
    speak for my colleagues, but speaking for myself, I would not
    envision trying to keep the Shuttle going. I think the risk is
    inherent and the national goals are not that which we want to
    accomplish.

                     RELYING ON RUSSIAN ``SOYUZ'' SERVICES

        That takes me to using the Soyuz. Whatever it is, we are
    currently relying on the Soyuz. So could you tell us where we
    are? Do we not have some treaty issues? I mean, you and I are
    not State Department wonks here, but do we not have kind of
    anti-proliferation compliance? As a member of the Intelligence
    Committee, I cannot be out of compliance with proliferation
    issues. Where are we with that? And what is required and where
    are we? And can the subcommittee help facilitate this?
        Dr. Griffin. Thank you. Yes. They are excellent questions
    there. First, we need Russian Soyuz services today at a minimum
    for crew rescue capability on board the station. The Shuttle is
    not a lifeboat. So until we have a qualified replacement
    system, Orion and Ares, qualified for 6 months of flight and
    therefore can serve the lifeboat function, we will be dependent
    upon the Russian Soyuz system for crew rescue from station.
        Second, after the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010, the
    only mechanism for crew transport will be the Russian Soyuz
    system.
        To your point out treaty obligations, we have the INKSNA,
    the treaty that I mentioned and to which you referred, for
    control of space technology and missile technology
    proliferation, which prevents the purchase of certain goods and
    services from Russia for the Space Station program. We are
    currently operating under an exemption to that treaty. It ends
    on December 31, 2011. So until the end of 2011, we can purchase
    Progress cargo delivery services and Soyuz crew transport
    services. There is about a 3-year lead time for the Russians to
    produce a new Soyuz. So, if in 2012 we wish to have crew
    transportation for ourselves and our partners to whom we have
    treaty obligations, then by around early 2009, hopefully
    sooner, we need to have agreements in place with Russia. To
    accomplish that, I need to furnish to the Congress, within a
    very short period of time, a request from the administration
    for a continued exemption to the treaty.

            IRAN, NORTH KOREA, SYRIA NON-PROLIFERATION ACT (INKSNA)

        Senator Mikulski. Well, yes. Again, going back to my
    opening statement, this is a year of transition. Our new
    President does not take office until January 20 or 21, and we
    need to have this done in this current administration. It would
    be the hope of this subcommittee, working with our colleagues
    on Foreign Relations, Senators Biden and Lugar, who are experts
    on the proliferation issue--we would like to move this.
        When do you think we can expect a request from the
    administration?
        Dr. Griffin. I believe, Senator Mikulski, that it is
    imminent. We have spoken with them just yesterday. The last
    elements of coordination within the White House are ongoing as
    we speak. We are working with them to get that to the Congress
    as quickly as we can.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, over the next few weeks, we will be
    meeting with Secretary Rice on a variety of issues. So if we
    get bogged down, this subcommittee would like to offer a way of
    working with you and the administration to get it unstuck and
    over here for review by Senators Biden and Lugar so that we can
    move ahead with this. Okay?
        Dr. Griffin. Thank you very much.

                         ``SOYUZ'' LAUNCH CAPABILITIES

        Senator Mikulski. Now, this though then goes to COTS. So
    right now we can accelerate, if we put in $2 billion, to 2013.
    We have got the Soyuz. What is the astronaut capability of the
    Soyuz to take people up, not the rescue mission, but what is
    the max number of astronauts they can take up?
        Dr. Griffin. Well, the crew capacity on a given Soyuz
    launch is three. So obviously to sustain a crew of six, we need
    two Soyuz systems flying in rotation to maintain the crew of
    six that we go to in April 2009.
        Senator Mikulski. And how much are the Russians charging us
    per flight? Did they talk about that yet? Because they now have
    a monopoly.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, they do. Our current contract calls for
    payments for Soyuz seats and progress flights through the end
    of 2011 of $780 million.

                   COMMERCIAL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

        Senator Mikulski. And that will go back and forth. Well, we
    will go into that in more detail.
        Let us go to COTS. Could you outline what the budget
    request for COTS is? What do you think we buy for it, and do
    you think that is sufficient? And is COTS an answer in terms of
    beefing up COTS to take people up there where we would have our
    own kind of version of a Soyuz, in other words, not the full go
    to the Moon and so on, but really a Space Station vehicle which
    COTS is? Can you share with us those views? Because there is a
    lot floating around that COTS could be the answer to the gap.
        Dr. Griffin. COTS, commercial orbital transportation
    services, is a program that I initiated upon rejoining NASA on
    this occasion. I did so because I believe very strongly--I
    believe two things, that we need a strong Government
    development program for Orion and Ares to guarantee that we
    have the capability to get to Earth orbit again and to go to
    the Moon, as Admiral Gehman discussed. But I also believe that
    we need to stimulate, wherever possible as a matter of
    Government policy, provide rewards for the development of
    commercial capability available for purchase by the Government,
    but on an arm's length basis.
        So the purpose of the program was to provide some, not all,
    of the money necessary for new systems development to reach
    Earth orbit, allowing companies to use that leverage of
    Government funds to seek other investment, and to bring to bear
    new capabilities.
        We are focusing on initially cargo because I just want to
    be clear with everybody. We actually have a mechanism to get
    crew to the Station with the Soyuz system, but unless we can
    bring some new commercial capabilities online, we really have
    no cargo resupply. So actually of the two, the most important
    COTS capability to me right now is cargo, and I must be honest
    about that.
        However, COTS is a program with four different phases to
    it, and phase D is human transportation. And yes, we would very
    much like to see a capability developed from U.S. commercial
    suppliers to provide crew transport to and from the Space
    Station, and I do believe that can be a solution going forward.
        I do not believe that even with their best efforts and even
    if more money were provided, that COTS crew transportation
    capability will arrive in time to be available after the
    Shuttle retires or even by the end of the current contract with
    Russia in 2012. So I do not believe that it will be available.
        Senator Mikulski. So what you are saying is there is no
    silver bullet or there is no magic potion available to close
    the gap.
        Dr. Griffin. Ma'am, I do not know of one.
        Senator Mikulski. So extending the life of the Shuttle is
    not a reasonable option.
        COTS, which is very promising technology--its first
    priority is cargo because that is what is needed to sustain the
    astronauts when we get them up there. Without a cargo vehicle,
    the cost is prohibitive. We cannot use Soyuz for cargo at the
    cost of the Soyuz, and I do not think it would be big enough
    for cargo.
        Dr. Griffin. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. So we need COTS to do the sustainability
    of the astronauts.
        At the same time, sure, COTS has promise, but you want to
    make sure that what is firmly in place is the cargo capability,
    but while they are developing their technologies, of course, we
    would look forward to possibilities of adding a human element.
    But that is an add-on to the mission.
        Do I have it down right?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. What I am really getting to is people are
    fishing around--not fishing. I should say searching. That was
    not a good use of the word. Genuinely searching because of the
    gap. And like everything else we do in this Government, we have
    regrets about, oh, why was this not all thought about. But we
    are where we are.
        So what you are saying is that right now the only reliable
    transportation system after 2010 will be Soyuz. So we have to
    work with the Russians, get our treaty in place, et cetera. We
    have got to keep COTS on track no matter what because that is
    the cargo. Even during the gap, we can sustain our American
    presence, and we will have an American vehicle in space. So it
    will not be like we are just sitting on the tarmac.
        Am I correct?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. But there is no magic potion to close the
    gap. The only prudent fiscal way to go is accelerate Ares and
    Orion by 2 years and, at the same time, keep COTS on track so
    we have the cargo capability. So, from the standpoint of fiscal
    reality and engineering sensibility, that would be the way to
    go.
        Dr. Griffin. Ma'am, I think you have it perfectly.

                       SPACE SHUTTLE WORKFORCE TRANSITION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, the reason I took such a long time
    in asking these questions is there are a lot of ideas in the
    ethers out here and I wanted to be able to do that.
        Now, my last question on this is what is the plan for the
    workforce transition when the Shuttle is retired? And I am
    talking about at Kennedy. It is of deep concern, of course, to
    our two colleagues from Florida. You know, we ask people to go
    into science and engineering. There have been people who have
    been working at Kennedy. They have given their life's work
    through good times and wrenching times. We remember the brave
    way they responded during Hurricane Katrina to keep everything
    in place. I mean, it is a wonderful talented, group of people,
    and we do not want to leave them hanging by their thumbs.
        Dr. Griffin. Well, we do not, and I know that your
    colleagues from Florida are concerned. But I too am concerned.
    I am the Administrator of this agency, and that is my
    workforce. So I am concerned as well.
        Before I answer your question about what our plans are, I
    would like to note a positive thing for the record, if I might.
    I just received word that the planned docking of the European
    automated transfer vehicle, which is a cargo delivery vehicle
    to the Space Station in support of European obligations to the
    partnership, just successfully docked with the Space Station
    for the first time on its maiden flight. This accomplishment of
    an automated rendezvous and docking is the first by any nation
    other than Russia and brings our European partners fully on
    line as full partners in the Space Station. It is a magnificent
    accomplishment for the partnership.
        Senator Mikulski. We salute our European colleagues.
        Dr. Griffin. I think they deserve every bit of that.
        Now, to answer your question about our workforce, we are
    obligated to the Congress for a report twice a year. Every 6
    months we must report on our transition plans to retire Shuttle
    and bring Ares and Orion online. We submitted the first of
    those per requirement on Monday, and it showed, among the
    contractor community at Kennedy Space Center, over the years
    the worst case scenario of a reduction of some 6,400 or so jobs
    over the years following retirement of the Shuttle.
        Now, for the record, I must point out to this subcommittee
    that those projections are projections which are obtained by
    forecasting the job reductions from retirement of the Shuttle,
    but they do not forecast the job increases as we bring on a
    future lunar development program. So as we begin to get out of
    Shuttle and station operations, we are fairly well able to
    forecast who we will lose, but----
        Senator Mikulski. But is that the same workforce?
        Dr. Griffin. Well, it will not be the same people. It will
    be a different skill mix.
        Senator Mikulski. That is what I mean.
        Dr. Griffin. The Shuttle workforce, in terms of Shuttle
    operations, will be a much smaller operational workforce for
    Ares and Orion. That was a goal of retiring the Shuttle.
        When we put new work down at Kennedy Space Center, it will,
    in some respects, require different kinds of skills. So we have
    the option--the companies have the option of retraining people,
    but many people will be moving to take other jobs and new
    people will be moving in to take new jobs.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Dr. Griffin, this is a conversation
    I really want to have Senator Shelby participate in and also
    our space authorizing team, Senator Nelson. We know that
    Senator Landrieu is deeply concerned about the Michoud issue
    where I think we estimate that there could be 1,000 more there.
        Really then, what do we anticipate and what is it really
    going to take? Are we looking at retirements and therefore a
    steady glide path? Are we looking at retraining? Because we
    will have to give you money to do retraining as we are doing
    that. And we have got to look at how we are all moving in the
    same way. Just as you have your engineering plans and you have
    your critical path, we need to have the same critical path for
    our social--I hate to use the term ``social'' engineering, but
    our social plan, which is who is going to leave, who is going
    to stay to do the job they are doing, who is going to be
    retrained, what are we bringing on, and then how is this going
    to be paced and what is it then you would need from us with the
    workforce issues because we need people as well as our
    technology.
        So, let us schedule that after we complete our hearing.

                             OVERALL SCIENCE BUDGET

        Moving on, though, I want to go now to science. NASA's
    budget shows a flat science budget this year and also for the
    next 5 years. Some are winners like Earth science and planetary
    science. Others seem to not do as well, astrophysics and
    heliophysics.
        Is where we are on the budget enough to meet our existing
    obligations to science and continue the development of new
    ones? In other words, we have things underway, whether it is
    Hubble--I worry about ICESat.
        You know what everybody is excited about, of course, is the
    mission to our own planet Earth. I have been meeting with
    people. Senator Boxer has too in her global warming
    initiatives. Every scientist or environmental minister is crazy
    about NASA and also about the National Science Foundation (NSF)
    and about National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA). Because of our size, our scope, and our talent, we have
    become the indispensable nation in terms of the science that we
    do for our planet. Therefore, anything that we are going to do
    to solve the problems of our planet has to be rested on that.
        So we worry about that and do we have enough to do what we
    are doing? Could you comment on it? Because we see you and
    NOAA, working with the NSF and National Institute of Standards
    and Technology, we save lives and we are saving the planet.
        And what an incredible role of public diplomacy. You and I
    are sitting here talking about treaties with the Russians on
    making sure we do not proliferate, but those school kids in
    Australia or South Africa or Southeast Asia are looking at the
    same Hubble as the south Baltimore kids. The Danish
    environmental minister is looking at the Hubble stuff the way
    they are looking at the NOAA stuff over in India.
        So we know that Secretary Rice thinks she is the diplomat,
    but so is NASA. And we view Hubble as one of our first
    technological diplomats.
        So, my point is that where are we in terms of what we
    continue to do and in these new missions.
        Dr. Griffin. Well, Senator, although you did not ask, I
    could not agree with you more about the value of our space
    program as an instrument of positive American image and
    diplomacy in the world. Truthfully, over 60 percent of our
    science missions are done on a collaborative basis with other
    nations. Sometimes we supply an instrument. Sometimes we supply
    the major part of the spacecraft. But either way the
    collaborations that we do work, and they work for the United
    States and for everyone in the world.
        Now, our science budget. I need to say a couple of things.
    First of all, our science budget as a fraction of our portfolio
    is around 32 percent this year, and it is at historically high
    levels. So science is well funded at NASA. It is not growing as
    much as we would like until 2011 when we retire the Shuttle.
    Science resumes its growth at the top line starting in 2011.
        As you noted yourself, in these current years, our entire
    NASA top line growth is only 1.8 percent, and so for science to
    be slightly less than that is not a major difference between
    the agency's top line and the science portfolio top line.
        We are budgeted to meet the commitments that we have made,
    everything from Hubble and James Webb down to the Mars science
    lab and other things in other divisions of our science
    portfolio. We are budgeted to meet the commitments we have made
    to you.
        Certainly it is always possible, just as in our human space
    flight program, more money will buy more product. And there are
    always more new and interesting and fascinating science
    missions to do. But we have a rich plate of missions, and I
    believe that we are adequately funded to execute the ones we
    have said we will execute.
        Earth science did receive an increase this year I think in
    respect to the Earth science decadal. That is something we
    wanted to do. I was one of the people calling for a decadal 3
    years ago and now we have one, and we are pleased with it. We
    have revamped our Earth science portfolio to respect that
    decadal. But at the same time, astrophysicists and planetary
    scientists and heliophysicists also have decadal surveys, and
    we try to honor those missions as well.

                            EARTH OBSERVING SENSORS

        Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, that is heartening to
    hear, and know that we have just a great passion about this.
        I know you are so busy.
        You know, there are things I want to talk about with both
    science and education. Let me come back to I think a very
    poignant moment.
        The National Academy of Science. This goes to what they
    tell us they are concerned about. According to the National
    Academy, 40 percent of the Earth-observing sensors that are now
    in orbit will cease to function by the end of the decade unless
    they are replaced. And my question is, well, what does that
    mean? And what is NASA's plan to replace those sensors and
    satellites? In other words, do we have the money to even
    continue to do the pretty spectacular work we are already
    doing?
        Dr. Griffin. Right. We are in a difficult period right now.
    If you look at the sensor level on Earth sciences for climate
    research and environmental monitoring, we are in a difficult
    period because, as you know, the Department of Defense, the
    NOAA, and NASA NPOESS program being executed by the Air Force
    encountered some severe cost problems. And so the NPOESS
    spacecraft have been descoped. This has been the subject of
    other hearings before other committees of this Congress.
        Senator Mikulski. I know.
        Dr. Griffin. And so the climate research sensors that were
    originally planned to go on NPOESS will now not fly on NPOESS.
    Now, we have known this for over 1 year. We have been
    scrambling to try to find ways to remanifest those climate
    research sensors on other missions, and we are doing that. But
    the recovery plan from the NPOESS descope of climate research
    sensors cannot happen instantaneously. Moreover, NASA was not
    budgeted for these additional climate research sensor flight
    opportunities because that budget went to NPOESS.
        So in the White House and at NASA, by all means, we do
    recognize the seriousness of the concern about replacing the
    climate research sensors on orbit today. That was one of the
    originally intended purposes of NPOESS and we are having to
    find other ways to do it. And we are working that plan as
    aggressively as we are able.

      NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
                                    (NPOESS)

        Senator Mikulski. Well, the subcommittee and its staff
    would like to have an ongoing conversation with you about this.
    First of all, we are very concerned about NPOESS.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. We have raised it and it has been an
    enormous challenge. Of course, our overall satellite
    capabilities are of growing concern.
        But let me go to our accountability issue, and then we will
    conclude shortly. The Congress is going to have a commemorative
    ceremony noting the melancholy event that occurred 40 years ago
    tomorrow with the assassination of Dr. King. Both the House and
    Senate will gather for just a moment of reflection and really
    renewal to a commitment against violence in the world.
        NASA has informed us that of 12 science missions that are
    under development, 4 are over budget and 8 are behind schedule.
    We would like to talk with you about that in more detail as we
    look at this, one, maintaining the schedule but also where
    those four missions are over budget. We are not going to go
    into that because, again, I want to join my colleagues.
        I know Senator Shelby wanted to also ask about aeronautics
    and about education. The aeronautics is part of the NASA
    mission in education. So, we will follow up with aeronautics as
    we talk about it when we come together. Education, of course,
    continues to be such a major role at NASA.

                           CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS

        And I just want to tell you a story before we conclude
    about what your NASA Goddard people did that was so
    spectacular. We, in Baltimore, are the home to the National
    Federation of the Blind. It is their global headquarters.
        Some years ago, a wonderful Ph.D. by the name of Dr.
    Zabrowski, who just passed away, wanted to move the blind into
    the future and the new economy. Over 40 percent of all blind
    people live below poverty level because they do not have access
    to education that often takes them into the new careers. So,
    they did that. And one of the things they wanted to do was see
    if blind kids could have access to information about astronomy.
        On a modest grant of $50,000 from Goddard, working with the
    National Federation of the Blind, the Goddard Genius Club, and
    the Smithsonian Institution, we have now produced a textbook
    for blind kids, for middle school and high school, on
    astronomy. It is called ``Touching the Invisible Sky.'' And
    when you see this book--have you seen it?
        Dr. Griffin. I have seen it, ma'am. It is incredible.
        Senator Mikulski. It is incredible. The text is in Braille,
    but the pictures of the Hubble and other cosmic photographs are
    in these raised images that is having a profound impact.
        And when I went to Dr. Zabrowski's memorial service and
    told the gathering over 600 people about this book and
    presented a copy in behalf of all of us to their library--but
    it will be widely disseminated--the audience response was
    overwhelming. And the response afterwards, as people came up,
    parents were talking about they do not know if their kids will
    be astronomers, but they know that they could go into science.
    They could go into technology. If you are blind, you can hear
    very well. There are jobs and everything from national security
    to other things.
        So, you know, this is really about changing lives,
    transforming lives, and so on. And NASA is doing such great
    work. If we take the time for a modest $50,000 and transform
    opportunities for blind children--and once again, it will
    happen not only for our kids here in our own country, but this
    will go to south Baltimore and South Africa and so on. I mean,
    I think this is what we are all about.
        So, we want to go to the Moon and we want to get out there
    to Mars, return our astronauts safely. And we want to see what
    we can do to help you.
        So, I think we have covered our testimony today. I was kind
    of doing double dutch here. We will continue our conversations
    with you.
        We hope to have our bill ready. We view the President's
    request as the minimum threshold. We are going to see what
    other ways, given our allocation, we can add to this to
    accelerate our capabilities of closing the gap, as well as
    improving our science and aeronautics capability and see what
    we can do. I also will pursue adding that amendment for another
    $1 billion as emergency funding.
        So, since there are no further questions--and do not think
    that because my other colleagues are not here they are not
    interested. Many are chairing their own hearings on our
    accelerated schedule, and others are involved in the mortgage
    foreclosure.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        So, since there are no further questions--and Senators may
    submit questions for the subcommittee's official record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                              ROBOTIC LUNAR LANDER

        Question. I am pleased to see the budget request has a proposed
    lunar robotic lander mission for the Moon. This proposal comes on the
    heels of funding provided by this committee that followed
    recommendations from the National Research Council.
        Can you expand on what this mission will entail and how the
    workload will be distributed and managed for this mission?
        Answer. The Science Mission Directorate (SMD)-sponsored Lunar
    Science Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) will
    provide program management for the Lunar Science Program, consisting of
    a small-sat lunar orbiter and a series of mini-landers. The Lunar
    Science Program Office will establish a mini-lander project, also to be
    located at MSFC, using the capabilities of the LPRP office to conduct a
    phase A and begin Phase B. In fiscal year 2008-2009, the focus of the
    mini-lander project will be on defining the mini-lander design through
    Preliminary Design Review. As appropriate for the missions, SMD will
    define significant roles for the Applied Physics Lab (APL), Ames
    Research Center (ARC), the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
        Question. When do you anticipate this mission and will be ready to
    go to the moon?
        Answer. The first two mini-landers, which will be developed by MSFC
    and the APL, are envisioned to be launched in the 2013-14 timeframe.
    Further definition will be undertaken as part of the Pre-Phase A
    identified in the previous question.
        Question. Is there potential for these landers to be the first in a
    series of similar missions?
        Answer. It is envisioned that these landers will be the backbone
    nodes of an International Lunar Network providing a series of
    standardized seismic, heat flow, and other scientific measurements
    (provided by both the United States and international partners). In
    addition, Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and SMD will
    cooperate on the definition of key enabling technologies that might be
    suited for flight on one or more of the mini-landers.

                                 EDUCATION CUTS

        Question. How can we take the ACI model and apply it to NASA
    education programs to encourage students to want to become future
    scientists and engineers?
        Answer. NASA Education is taking steps that align with the ACI
    model to encourage students to enter STEM fields.
        The following activities reflect direct action based on the
    recommendations of the ACI:
      --Pursuant to Conference Report accompanying the America Competes
            Act, NASA is required to submit to Congress and the President
            an annual report describing the activities conducted pursuant
            to Section 2001 of the America COMPETES Act, including a
            description of the goals and the objective metrics upon which
            funding decisions were made. NASA will submit the first of
            these reports in January 2009.
      --Also pursuant to Section 2001, NASA will submit a plan for
            assessing the effectiveness of the Agency's science,
            technology, engineering, and mathematics education programs in
            improving student achievement, including with regard to
            challenging State achievement standards.
      --NASA is utilizing the Undergraduate Student Research Program to
            support basic research projects on STEM subjects.
      --NASA is also leading the interagency ISS Education Coordination
            Working Group, with its concept plan, ``An Opportunity to
            Educate: ISS National laboratory,'' which was submitted to
            Congress on June 20, 2008. The Working Group is also in early
            discussions with other interested agencies that are not formal
            participants.
        Pursuant to direction included in the Explanatory Statement
    accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
    NASA's Office of Education will soon release a competitive solicitation
    to the university community, based upon recommendations from Earth
    Science and Application from Space: National Imperatives for the Next
    Decade and Beyond, prepared by the National Research Council in 2007.
      --The solicitation will address innovative opportunities for
            educating students on global climate change with a special
            component focusing on teacher education preparation (pre-
            service).
        NASA is also pursuing other interagency activities that will
    facilitate the enhancement of its STEM education program.
      --NASA Education serves on the Education Subcommittee of the National
            Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on Science,
            which is providing a report based on the Academic
            Competitiveness Council recommendations.
      --The Office of Education also represents the Agency on the
            Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force, a group of
            federal agencies with a vital interest in strategic planning
            for STEM education to strengthen the science and technology
            workforce.

                         EPSCOR AND SPACE GRANT FUNDING

        Question. Are these reductions because the programs are ineffective
    in their objectives?
        Answer. NASA has not de-emphasized its education program nor
    reduced these two projects being ineffective in their objectives.
    Though the 2009 request for NASA education is a reduction of $31.2
    million from the 2008 enacted budget, it reflects the reality of
    addressing increasing mission operational requirements within limited
    funding.
        Each program area in the Agency was impacted by the need to
    redirect funding. The overall Office of Education's budget reduction
    was further influenced by ``Results Not Demonstrated'' rating in last
    year's OMB Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis due to
    the agency not providing sufficient data indicating the program's
    effectiveness. Baseline data and results have now been submitted to OMB
    for review. Education is and will continue to be a fundamental element
    of NASA's activities reflecting a diverse portfolio of Higher
    Education, Minority University Research and Education, Elementary &
    Secondary/Education, and Informal Education Programs.
        For Space Grant, the quantitative change between the fiscal year
    2009 and fiscal year 2008 budgets in DIRECT dollars is a decrease of
    $6.9 million. The Space Grant two tiers of alliances (35 states and 17
    states) are funded at $730,000 and $535,000; respectively, in fiscal
    year 2008. As with all projects, the request includes agency
    administrative full costs that include corporate general and
    administrative costs, which are determined by the Office of the Chief
    Financial Officer (OCFO), as well as project-specific costs. For fiscal
    year 2008 Space Grant, the corporate general and administrative costs
    are approximately $7.6 million. Final allocations are dependent upon
    the passing of the NASA Appropriation and subsequent approval of the
    NASA Operating Plan. Funds will be apportioned to the Space Grant
    consortia in a pro rata manner consistent with 35 Designated consortia
    and 17 Program Grant/Capability Enhancement consortia.
        Question. Are there better places for us to focus our resources for
    education funding, and if so, what education programs do you believe
    work the best at NASA?
        Answer. NASA's Agency goals in education are outlined in both the
    2006 NASA Strategic Plan and the NASA Education Strategic Coordination
    Framework: A Portfolio Approach.
        All of NASA's education efforts are part of an integrated Agency-
    wide approach to human capital management. Within the NASA Strategic
    Plan, education is identified as a crosscutting function that supports
    all of the Agency's strategic goals and objectives.
        For the fiscal year 2009 budget, Education used a defined process
    to create a balanced portfolio of investments to address the NASA
    Strategic Plan, recommendations from the National Research Council
    (NRC), and education community priorities.
        Each project within the portfolio is mapped to one of the following
    Outcomes as defined in the NASA Strategic Plan and the Education
    Strategic Portfolio Coordination Framework:
      --Outcome ED-1: Contribute to the development of the STEM workforce
            in disciplines needed to achieve NASA's strategic goals through
            a portfolio of programs.
      --Outcome ED-2: Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines
            through a progression of educational opportunities for
            students, teachers, and faculty.
      --Outcome ED-3: Build strategic partnerships and linkages between
            STEM formal and informal education providers that promote STEM
            literacy and awareness of NASA's mission.
    Background:
        In 2006 and beyond, NASA will pursue three major education goals:
      --Strengthen NASA and the Nation's future workforce.--NASA will
            identify and develop the critical skills and capabilities
            needed to ensure achievement of NASA's mission. To help meet
            this demand, NASA will continue contributing to the development
            of the Nation's science, technology, engineering, and
            mathematics (STEM) workforce of the future through a diverse
            portfolio of education initiatives that target America's
            students at all levels, especially those in traditionally
            underserved and underrepresented communities.
      --Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines.--NASA will focus
            on engaging and retaining students in STEM education programs
            to encourage their pursuit of educational disciplines and
            careers critical to NASA's future engineering, scientific, and
            technical missions.
      --Engage Americans in NASA's mission.--NASA will build strategic
            partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and informal
            education providers. Through hands-on, interactive educational
            activities, NASA will engage students, educators, families, the
            general public, and all Agency stakeholders to increase
            Americans' science and technology literacy.

                               10 HEALTHY CENTERS

        Question. One of the challenges in running NASA is keeping a
    workforce and the agencies aging facilities running and operating
    efficiently. You have mentioned in the past of maintaining 10 healthy
    and productive centers. Not all centers are the same in their health,
    in fact, some will likely be healthier than others.
        Can you give this committee an idea of which centers, in your
    opinion, are healthier and which ones are not quite as healthy?
        Answer. Achieving the Agency's Space Exploration mission is a
    challenge requiring NASA to draw on all of its expertise and resources.
    Mission success will depend on ten strong, healthy centers. NASA's
    Strategic Management Council (SMC) has developed a set of attributes
    that define strong, healthy Centers as:
      --Centers strategically positioned, configured, and operated to
            support NASA's Mission.
      --Centers that are prepared to execute programs and project
            responsibilities successfully and are prepared to adjust or
            adapt to changes necessary for future Center and Agency success
            (i.e., Centers doing the right job with the right number of
            competently prepared people supported by the right mix of
            state-of-the-art facilities and the right budget.)
        The indicators of strong and healthy centers can be grouped into
    two major categories:
      --Human Capital.--The ability to productively utilize the NASA
            workforce and to adjust workforce size and skills to meet
            current and future mission requirements and sustain the
            operations of the center.
      --Physical Capital.--The quality and utilization of mission and
            center institutional assets (facilities, buildings, etc.)
            required to meet not only NASA programmatic goals, but also to
            sustain national interests while providing for safe and stable
            center operations.
        Human Capital.--NASA plans to assign important spaceflight
    development activities in exploration and science to all of the
    Centers. Workforce planning has been more effectively integrated into
    the annual budget process and the assignment of work to the NASA
    workforce is supported though a high level of collaboration between the
    programs and the Centers. Where work demand exceeds available workforce
    at a center, it is shifted to centers where workforce is available. In
    the out-years of the budget planning horizon, ARC, GRC, LaRC and DFRC
    have a small amount of workforce available that have not yet been
    planned to identified program demand and funding. However, matching
    work assignments to this workforce is a manageable challenge that we
    expect to resolve as we complete the development of our fiscal year
    2010 budget. An additional measure of workforce health is its
    scalability. NASA can adjust the size of its workforce through
    strategies such as buyout and early retirement incentives, hiring
    controls, and expanded use of non-permanent workforce; i.e., term
    appointments. At the monthly Baseline Performance Review, NASA senior
    leadership reviews key workforce metrics to monitor Center workforce
    health and make adjustments as needed.
        Facilities.--The condition of NASA facilities are approximately
    consistent from Center to Center. Facilities condition varies from
    Center to Center by 0.7, rated on 0 to 5.0 scale.
        Question. If there are centers that are struggling to be healthy,
    would it not be fair to consider converting a less healthy center into
    some other instrument that NASA could utilize like a federally funded
    research and development center (FFRDC)?
        Answer. There are currently no large differences in Center health
    across the Agency, primarily due to the efforts of NASA's leadership
    over the past three years in assigning exploration and science
    development work to strengthen and maintain a healthy workforce
    balance. NASA will continue to face challenges but intends to work
    proactively and strategically to mitigate issues. In 2004-2005, NASA
    investigated the possibility of converting the operations and
    management of some NASA Centers to other organizational models such as
    FFRDCs, Government Corporations or university consortia. At that time,
    several Centers had significant issues that contributed to their
    unhealthy state. Since then, the goal of 10 healthy Centers has been
    developed and maintained, and NASA is not currently pursuing other
    organizational models for its Centers.

                             EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES

        Question. You have already touched on what is currently happening
    in with the Ares and Orion programs. These programs are integral to
    maintaining our Nation's manned spaceflight activities.
        Can you provide us an update on where we are in the schedule?
        Answer. NASA's Constellation program has moved beyond being just a
    mere concept on paper; we are making real progress. We have tested
    hardware; we have tested landing systems; and we have logged thousands
    of hours in wind tunnels. So far, the Ares I project has conducted more
    than 4,000 hours of wind tunnel testing on subscale models of the Ares
    I to simulate how the current vehicle design performs in flight. These
    tests support development of the J-2X engine for the Ares I and the
    Earth Departure Stage of the Ares V. By December 2007, all major
    elements of the Orion and Ares vehicles were placed under contract.
    This year, Constellation will be busy with hardware activities which
    include fabrication of the First Stage Development Motors 1 and 2 for
    Ares I; complete construction of the Upper Stage Common Bulkhead
    Demonstration article and also deliver the first Ares I-X demonstration
    test flight hardware to KSC in October 2008. Orion will be just as
    busy, culminating the year with a test of its launch abort system at
    the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.
        All activities are progressing to support all planned design
    reviews. The Ares I and Orion projects recently completed their Systems
    Definition Review (SDR) and the Preliminary Non-Advocate Reviews that
    confirmed NASA is employing a strong systems engineering approach to
    refine the current program requirements and the requirements were
    properly allocated down to the projects. Orion and Ares I Projects are
    currently proceeding toward their individual Project level Preliminary
    Design Reviews (PDR) by the end of the year. These reviews provide
    opportunities to confirm that the subject activities, products, and
    process control requirements have been adequately flowed to--and
    implemented within--the Projects. The Projects, along with the program,
    are tracking all products required for PDR to insure all data is
    available on time and at the appropriate maturity level.
        Question. Are there any technical issues that NASA is aware of
    today that will cause the current schedule to slip and make the gap
    between the Shuttle retirement and Ares and Orion even longer?
        Answer. NASA is very confident in the capability of our government
    and contractor Constellation team, to accomplish this complex system
    acquisition. We are not dependent on the development of exotic new
    technologies to make this program a reality. Our challenge is the
    integration of complex systems that must work together. Issues have and
    will inevitably arise, but none are expected to delay the Initial
    Operating Capability of Ares and Orion, set for March 2015.
        NASA is continuing the design process for the Orion and is pleased
    with the progress made so far. The current design configuration
    establishes a robust vehicle and meets the weight requirements,
    including meeting the more demanding lunar configurations. However,
    NASA recognizes that the design is still young and much work remains to
    be done to complete it. Some of the key areas NASA is following closely
    with Orion are:
      --Crew support for safety;
      --Ensuring the vehicle adequately supports the crew in the event of
            contingency landings when the crew may have to spend an
            extended period of time in the vehicle prior to recovery by
            ground support teams;
      --Landing scenarios assessment;
      --The assessment of mass threats and opportunities against the Orion
            PDR configuration; and
      --Understanding the vulnerabilities of the vehicle design and
            understanding the Loss of Crew and Loss of Mission
            probabilities.
        Question. What would it take to make these systems come on-line
    sooner, or are we at a point where no matter how much additional
    funding is provided, the successful launch of the Constellation
    vehicles cannot be accelerated?
        Answer. Full funding of NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget request for
    Constellation is needed so that we can continue successful transition
    between the Shuttle and the Orion and Ares I. The fiscal year 2009
    budget request supports Orion IOC in March 2015 at a 65 percent cost
    confidence and full operational capability (FOC) in fiscal year 2016,
    though NASA is working to bring this new vehicle online sooner.
        In preparation for NASA's fiscal year 2010 budget submission to
    Congress next year, NASA is beginning to make several new assessments
    of the program plans, budget available and schedule for the Orion and
    Ares vehicles. Although those calculations are not final, NASA believes
    that acceleration to September 2014 IOC may be possible if additional
    funding for these vehicles beyond what is projected in the fiscal year
    2009 Presidential Budget Request were made available.

                               FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

        Question. For several years now this committee has asked about
    NASA's financial systems. NASA has a recent track record of failing its
    independent audits. We keep being reassured that the financial system
    was being improved.
        Can you point to any improvements in the way NASA keeps track of
    its $17 billion in funds?
        Answer. NASA has two remaining material weaknesses: Financial
    Systems, Analyses, and Oversight (FSAO); and, Enhancements Needed for
    Controls Over Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E) and Materials. The
    FSAO material weakness addresses multiple entity-wide internal control
    weaknesses, identified by the agency's independent auditor. To resolve
    these issues, NASA has developed a Comprehensive Compliance Strategy
    (CCS) that focuses on ensuring compliance with Generally Accepted
    Accounting Principles (GAAP) and other financial reporting
    requirements. The CCS also covers the standards and requirements
    necessary to cure deficiencies noted in recent audit and related
    reports. The CCS serves as the basis for implementing comprehensive
    proactive corrective actions and provides the guiding principles for
    executing effective financial management functions and activities with
    internal control and compliance solutions inherently embedded in the
    processes.
        In the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, NASA undertook an
    internal review and engaged a nationally-recognized accounting firm to
    perform an in-depth analysis of requirements for NASA to be in
    compliance with GAAP and other applicable financial standards, to
    demonstrate such compliance through auditable evidence, and to operate
    with robust and comprehensive internal controls. Validation of this
    framework and plans to implement the required actions to conform NASA
    policies to this framework were completed in the second quarter of
    fiscal year 2008. An assessment of the remedial actions necessary is
    underway, and upon completion of the assessment, timing and phasing for
    resolution will be determined. The CCS provides the critical path
    milestones for NASA to resolve the FSAO material weakness.
        The Property, Plant and Equipment material weakness is comprised of
    issues primarily related to the agency's reliance on contractors to
    ``report property values at periodic intervals without robust agency-
    wide detect controls,'' and difficulties ensuring the completeness of
    balances for certain legacy assets.
        In November 2007, NASA implemented a new policy and related
    procedures for identifying the cost of individual assets throughout the
    asset's acquisition lifecycle. This policy change was based on guidance
    received from the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB).
    These changes support the verification and reconciliation of asset
    values for those assets developed through new contracts (post November
    2007) and certain large pre-existing contracts. For legacy assets, like
    the Space station and Space Shuttles, NASA does not have the necessary
    supporting information available to provide auditable book values for
    the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). Together,
    Shuttle and ISS related assets currently represent over $14 billion of
    the total $20.6 billion PP&E net asset value reported in the September
    30, 2007 fiscal year-end financial statements. While certain of the
    existing Shuttle and ISS assets will be transitioned for use on other
    NASA programs, much of this issue may become moot with the passage of
    time, as the Shuttle is to be retired in 2010, and the ISS is being
    depreciated based upon a 15-year specification life through 2016. While
    the ISS depreciation schedule naturally leads to 2016 as an outside
    date for resolution of this issue, NASA is presently developing and
    evaluating a variety of alternatives with a view to achieving a more
    timely, albeit still cost efficient and effective, solution for this
    issue.
        Question. Will we see any improvement in how NASA manages its funds
    so that it is clear to everyone what is happening with taxpayer funds?
        Answer. Even though we still have two material weaknesses
    outstanding, NASA has high confidence in the current data collected and
    reported in our financial systems from our contractors and NASA
    facilities. With this data, we are reporting monthly program status to
    NASA management and Congressional members and staff. We are actively
    using this information to make decisions daily about the execution of
    our programs and projects. Our financial systems permit a comprehensive
    monthly assessment of the execution status of our projects, helping us
    to identify which projects might require additional funding, and which
    may be potential sources for funds re-balancing. You will see operating
    plan requests that are based upon this level of insight.
        Our financial systems now provide standard data reports that can be
    used by senior managers to assess how well projects are using their
    appropriated funds and to allow managers to make corrections as needed
    to ensure proper funds management. Starting last summer, we initiated
    an Agency-wide effort to ensure efficient use of appropriated funds,
    with a goal of reducing our end of year unobligated balances by over 40
    percent. Through better reporting, better funds distribution processes,
    and better management tools and standards, we expect to achieve this
    goal by the end of fiscal year 2008.
        Question. In your proposed budget for the Shuttle, there is funding
    identified through fiscal year 2011. For a vehicle that has been around
    as long as the Shuttle, I find it hard to believe that the program can
    be completely closed out in that short of time. What is the plan to
    fund and perform this close out activity?
        Answer. Current plans call for Shuttle transition and retirement
    real and personal property disposition activities (the long-term item
    in transition and retirement) to be effectively complete (with no
    further significant budget impacts to ongoing programs) by about the
    middle of the next decade. Shuttle transition and closeout began two
    years ago and the rate of closeout continues to increase as the Shuttle
    flies out the remaining manifest. The goal, projections, and progress
    indicate that Shuttle closeout will be well on its way to completion at
    the end of 2010. NASA will develop estimates for transition and
    retirement funding needed from 2011 and later during the formulation of
    the fiscal year 2010 budget. It is important to note that NASA
    continues to disposition Apollo-era property at a low level even today,
    thirty-two years after the last flight of an Apollo vehicle.
        The in-year resources (i.e., those from fiscal year 2006-10, the
    end of the Space Shuttle Program) for Transition and Retirement (T&R)
    activities are already incorporated in the Space Shuttle Program budget
    line. The out-year costs (i.e., those from fiscal year 2011-15) for T&R
    activities are being generated now as part of the formulation of the
    fiscal year 2010 President's Budget request. The budget projection will
    benefit from trade studies and ``what-if'' exercises conducted since
    the development of the fiscal year 2009 request, and will reflect an
    increasingly mature understanding of Constellation Program
    requirements. Every time NASA has projected out-year T&R costs, the
    numbers have decreased. Thus, the Agency didn't want to prematurely
    commit to a firm set of out-year numbers, since data and trends
    indicate that transition and retirement costs will be lower than the
    estimate from 2007. In not ``locking in'' higher projections, NASA
    hopes to incentivize people to find the best methods and approaches for
    the Agency.
        Question. What are your observations on the Chinese space program
    and what does it mean for our Nation?
        Answer.
    Assessment of Chinese Capabilities to Mount a Human Lunar Mission
        Chinese space officials have openly discussed plans to conduct
    spacewalking demonstrations next year, orbital rendezvous and docking
    operations by 2010, and a robotic lunar landing mission by 2012. Based
    upon a careful review of open source information concerning the
    capabilities of the Shenzhou crew vehicle and the planned Long March 5
    rocket, it is my considered judgment that, although China's public
    plans do not include a human lunar landing, China will have the
    technical wherewithal to conduct a manned mission to the surface of the
    moon before the United States plans to return.
        While initial Chinese mission(s) to the moon would not have the
    long-term sustainability of our own plans for lunar return, I believe
    China could be on the moon before the United States can return.
        China is prosecuting a fully indigenous program of human
    spaceflight development. They have adapted the design of the Russian
    Soyuz vehicle to create their own Shenzhou, which is more spacious,
    more capable, and better suited for long duration space missions than
    its Russian antecedent. China plans to conduct its first spacewalks and
    orbital rendezvous operations in 2008 and 2010, and to build a small
    space station in the next few years. All of this has been openly
    announced. Their accomplishments so far give me no cause to doubt their
    ability to carry out these plans.
        With the first manned Shenzhou flight in October 2003 China
    surpassed by itself the accomplishments of all six U.S. Mercury
    missions in the early 1960s. The second Shenzhou flight in 2005
    demonstrated most of the accomplishments of the first three U.S. Gemini
    missions in 1965. They will soon demonstrate the rendezvous and docking
    capabilities pioneered by the United States in the Gemini program in
    1966, by docking a Shenzhou spacecraft with another Shenzhou, or with
    an orbital module left by a prior mission.
        These examples illustrate a fundamental difference between the
    development of the Chinese human spaceflight program, and that of the
    United States and Russia. Because China can follow established
    technical paths, they do not have to verify the basic feasibility of
    their approach. They need only to demonstrate that their systems work
    as designed to accomplish tasks which are by now well understood. Thus,
    each step in space can take them to a new capability plateau, eclipsing
    the equivalent of several pioneering but tentative steps in an earlier
    era. The United States required twenty-one human spaceflights to reach
    the moon in the 1960s. China should not need so many.
        The second major initiative for which the Chinese have demonstrated
    significant progress is the development of the Long March 5 launch
    vehicle. They have conducted several rocket engine tests over the past
    two years, and plan to conduct demonstration flights in 2008-11. The
    Chinese have advertised its capability as 25 metric tons (mT) to low
    Earth orbit (LEO), rivaling or surpassing the largest expendable launch
    vehicles available today, which have a capacity of approximately 20 mT,
    or slightly greater. I believe that China's concerted, methodical
    approach to the Long March 5 development, along with recent
    construction of a new launch facility on Hainan Island, puts them on
    track to bring the Long March 5 online by 2013-14, their stated
    intention. NASA's Ares I rocket, which will have similar capabilities,
    will not be fully functional until March 2015, according to current
    plans.
        Third, China has developed and demonstrated a dual launch
    processing capability. This capability, together with the 25 mT-to-LEO
    capacity of the Long March 5, allows China to reach the ``tipping
    point'' critical to executing a manned mission to the Earth's moon. As
    one possible approach, this can be done by means of two dual-launch
    sequences.
        The first Long March 5 would place, in Earth orbit, a lunar lander
    similar in size and mass to the Apollo Lunar Module, about 14 mT,
    together with a lunar orbit injection (LOI) stage weighing 6 mT. With a
    second Long March 5 launch, the lander and LOI stage would be joined in
    Earth orbit by a 25 mT Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) stage. The two
    payloads would rendezvous and dock automatically, as the Russian Soyuz
    and Progress vehicles do at the International Space Station today.
    After docking, the TLI stage would send the combined payload to the
    moon. Injection into lunar orbit would be accomplished by the LOI
    stage, leaving the lander poised to wait for a few weeks--or even
    months if necessary--for the second launch sequence.
        The second pair of Long March 5 launches would place in Earth orbit
    a crewed Shenzhou vehicle and LOI stage with one launch, and a TLI
    stage with the other. As in the earlier sequence, the Shenzhou would
    rendezvous and dock with the TLI stage, which would send the combined
    stack to the moon. The LOI stage would decelerate the Shenzhou into
    lunar orbit, where it would then dock with the waiting lander. The
    Shenzhou would differ from today's Earth-orbital version in two
    respects. It would require larger propellant tanks to allow it to
    depart lunar orbit for the return to Earth, and it might require a
    thicker heat shield to withstand atmospheric entry upon return from the
    moon. Neither of these modifications presents a significant challenge.
    The lunar version of Shenzhou would weigh about 11 mT, considerably
    less than the 14 mT lunar lander, so the delivery of a lunar-capable
    Shenzhou to lunar orbit presents no difficulty.
        After rendezvous, the Shenzhou crew would transfer to the lander,
    land on the moon's surface, remain for several days, depart, rendezvous
    again with the Shenzhou, and return to Earth. (Parameters and
    assumptions for this scenario are summarized in the attached Technical
    Notes.)
        What is fundamentally different about the dual-launch capability
    that the Chinese have demonstrated, and could well develop for the Long
    March 5, is that it enables human lunar missions without requiring a
    120 mT class vehicle like the Apollo-era Saturn V, or our planned
    Shuttle-derived Ares V. This technique is not particularly cost-
    effective and is not easily scaled to a sustainable operation, but it
    does offer a path to ``boots on the moon'' without the development of a
    heavy-lift launch vehicle.
        Apart from the lunar lander itself, this approach requires for its
    implementation only modest developments beyond the existing Shenzhou
    and the Long March 5 vehicles. The new elements for a lunar mission are
    the TLI and LOI stages, which would be essentially the same aside from
    the size of the propellant tanks employed, and which would utilize the
    upper-stage engines from the Long March 5, with modest improvements.
    This is a minor developmental excursion from Long March 5 technology.
        China has not announced any intention to develop a human lunar
    lander. However, I note that China recently launched its first robotic
    lunar orbiter mission, and has announced plans for a robotic lander by
    2012 and a robotic sample return mission in the 2017-2020 timeframe.
    The developments in communications, tracking, guidance, navigation, and
    control required to execute robotic lunar orbital and lander missions
    are identical to those for a manned system, irrespective of whether or
    not the lander itself is scaleable to human missions. Inasmuch as the
    design parameters of the Apollo lunar lander are widely known and well
    within today's state of the art, the development of a similar vehicle
    by the Chinese should not present a significant problem.
        Pending development of a Chinese manned lunar lander, a fly-by or
    orbital mission around the moon could easily be executed with the
    Shenzhou spacecraft and a single pair of Long March 5 launches, as
    outlined above. Indeed, as a matter of prudent engineering development,
    I would fully expect China to execute such a mission prior to a lunar
    landing. This would be completely analogous to the inspirational Apollo
    8 mission during the Christmas season of 1968.
        Question. What do you think we need to do to maintain our advantage
    in space exploration and innovation?
        Answer. NASA should continue to take all steps necessary to retire
    the Shuttle, which is planned for the end of fiscal year 2010.
    Retirement of the Shuttle is a critical step in enabling a smooth
    transition to NASA's exploration program. Full funding of NASA's fiscal
    year 2009 budget request for Constellation is needed so that we can
    continue successful transition between the Shuttle and the Orion and
    Ares I. The fiscal year 2009 budget request supports Orion IOC in March
    2015 at a 65 percent cost confidence and full operational capability
    (FOC) in fiscal year 2016, though NASA is working to bring this new
    vehicle online sooner. Budget stability in fiscal year 2009 is crucial
    to maintaining IOC. There is minimum flexibility through fiscal year
    2010, so Congressional support for budget stability is critical.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

             NASA OPERATIONS AT THE MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY (MAF)

        Question. Given the vast amount of room in the MAF and the green
    space outside the facility, are there any expected transfer business
    opportunities from other NASA facilities to Michoud in the next year?
        Answer. Since 2006, NASA has been actively supporting
    diversification of work being performed at the Michoud Assembly
    Facility (MAF) for NASA and other organizations, and the Agency will
    continue to do so. Today, MAF is transitioning from being a single-
    project (External Tank), government-owned, contractor-operated
    facility, to one being used for manufacturing by several human space
    flight projects for the Constellation Program. As part of this
    transition, Ares I Upper Stage and Instrument Unit work is planned for
    MAF, as well as Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle manufacturing and Launch
    Abort System work. After completion of the Space Shuttle manifest in
    2010, MAF's major use will be the production of the Ares V heavy lift
    rocket for Constellation.
        For the next year, NASA work at MAF is focusing on: continued
    External Tank production; initial start-up of Constellation Ares I
    Upper Stage and Orion manufacturing equipment installations;
    transitioning to a new base operations contractor; and investigation of
    ``enhanced use lease'' opportunities by non-NASA entities.
        During calendar year 2008, NASA is conducting the competition to
    select a new ``base operations contractor'' to operate and maintain MAF
    for NASA and non-NASA users. The contractor should be selected during
    fiscal year 2009. One reason NASA has made the change to the way the
    facility is operated now, prior to the last Space Shuttle External Tank
    being completed, is to facilitate the goal of enabling diversification
    of the work being performed at MAF before the last External Tank is
    completed. This should partially mitigate the workforce disruption at
    the end of External Tank production.
        NASA continues to refine Constellation plans this year, including
    plans for Ares V launcher design and development. It is possible that
    these refinements may accelerate Ares V work at MAF into fiscal year
    2012 or fiscal year 2011. If so, NASA will inform the Committee.
        Question. How about any in the next 5 years?
        Answer. NASA is currently investigating the possibility of adding
    Ares V manufacturing technology demonstrations to MAF over the next
    three years, prior to the start of full production of Ares V projects
    at MAF. These assessments will be conducted incrementally over the next
    two years, and may or may not result in manufacturing technology work
    assignments, based on budget availability and conflicts with work
    already at MAF. If work is added, NASA will inform the Committee.
        Layouts for NASA floor space at MAF in the fiscal year 2013-2014
    show that the great majority of MAF floor space will be used for
    manufacturing equipment installation for Ares V Core Stage and Ares V
    Earth Departure Stage (EDS) production. NASA floor plans show MAF floor
    space utilized at a very high percentage once Ares V development
    begins. Because MAF utilization is projected as being high for Ares V,
    and given the cost to programs of changing equipment locations once
    established, NASA is not currently considering major but temporary
    (two years) allocations of production work from other projects to MAF
    prior to Ares V development.
        NASA is currently refining plans to close out Space Shuttle
    External Tank production after the last Space Shuttle mission in fiscal
    year 2010. Work to dispose of materials and tooling no longer required
    for Space Shuttle production and unneeded for Constellation production
    will be conducted by a subset of the existing MAF contractor workforce.
    These plans are expected to be completed by October 2008. When these
    plans are completed and the amount and duration of work to dispose of
    External Tank manufacturing equipment is understood, NASA will inform
    the Committee.
        Question. Will you commit to do a thorough review of possible
    transfer opportunities which may help ``bridge'' employment at the
    Michoud Facility? (Yes/no)
        Answer. As stated in response to the previous question, NASA is
    currently conducting a competition to select a new ``base operations
    contractor'' to operate and maintain MAF for NASA and non-NASA users.
    The contractor should be selected during fiscal year 2009. One reason
    NASA has made the change to the way the facility is operated now, prior
    to the last Space Shuttle External Tank being completed, is to
    facilitate the goal of enabling diversification of the work being
    performed at MAF before the last External Tank is completed. This
    should partially mitigate the workforce disruption at the end of
    External Tank production.
        NASA is also exploring the potential of ``bridge'' employment at
    our impacted facilities, which may take the form of cross-training key
    Shuttle personnel to work on Constellation projects and/or early builds
    of some Constellation hardware. Also, in preparation for next year's
    budget submission to Congress, NASA is undertaking several programmatic
    trade studies for how best to plan and organize Constellation work,
    including the post-2010 flight test program, with an eye toward
    enhancing our test program and mitigating workforce impacts as we
    retire the Space Shuttle and transition to new Constellation Systems.
        It should also be noted that the first NASA Transition Workforce
    Report, submitted to the Committee on March 31, 2008, likely overstated
    the reduction in local employment at MAF because of the assumptions and
    caveats listed in that report. NASA continues to refine Ares V
    development planning, including short term manufacturing demonstration
    tasks, and these refinements may modify internal government estimates
    of contracted work to be conducted at MAF from fiscal year 2010 to
    fiscal year 2015. If there are internal estimate changes, these would
    be reflected in the next update to the NASA Transition Workforce Report
    in September 2008.

                       FUNDING FOR CONSTELLATION PROGRAM

        Question. How much in additional funding would have to be added to
    the fiscal year 2009 NASA budget to close or essentially close the gap
    between Space Shuttle retirement and the start of the Constellation
    Program?
        Answer. Full funding of NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget request for
    Constellation is needed so that we can continue successful transition
    between the Shuttle and the Orion and Ares I. The fiscal year 2009
    budget request maintains Orion initial operational capability (IOC) in
    March 2015 at a 65 percent cost confidence level and full operational
    capability (FOC) in fiscal year 2016, though NASA is working to bring
    this new vehicle online sooner. In order to accelerate the Ares I and
    Orion IOC, and provide for a 65 percent cost confidence level for a
    September 2014 IOC instead of March 2015, an additional $350 million in
    fiscal year 2009 and an additional $400 million in fiscal year 2010
    would be required.
        The Agency is considering a number of options for minimizing the
    period between Shuttle retirement and the availability of a new U.S.
    crew transport capability, including maintaining an aggressive
    development schedule for Orion/Ares I. However, keeping the Space
    Shuttle flying past 2010 is simply not a credible way to address this
    issue. The Agency cannot continue flying the Space Shuttle while
    simultaneously and aggressively developing the next-generation
    exploration systems under the Constellation program. Maintaining even a
    minimal capability to launch two Shuttle flights per year after fiscal
    year 2010 would require nearly the same infrastructure and vendor
    capabilities we have today, at a cost of approximately $2.7-$4 billion
    per year, which would likely come at the expense of Constellation
    development. In addition, the Constellation architecture is designed to
    take advantage of Space Shuttle infrastructure, production
    capabilities, and workforce once they are no longer needed for flying
    the Shuttle. If the Shuttle were kept flying past 2010, these
    capabilities could not be released for Constellation's modification and
    use. As a result, keeping Shuttle flying past 2010 would only compound
    the problem of getting Constellation into service and would not reduce
    the period between Shuttle retirement and the availability of a new
    U.S. crew transport capability.

                SMALL/DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION EFFORTS

        Question. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama currently has
    a U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Procurement Center
    Representative (PCR) which assists with small business procurement and
    technical assistance in that area. It is my understanding that this PCR
    is responsible for Michoud in New Orleans. Please provide information
    on the specific duties of this PCR.
        Answer. Ms. Barbara (Bobbie) Jenkins is the resident SBA PCR
    assigned to the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and is the liaison
    PCR and provides coverage for: the Stennis Space Center, MS, and NASA
    Shared Services Center (NSSC), which is located on the same campus as
    Stennis Space Flight Center, MS; Space and Missile Defense Agency in
    Huntsville, AL; Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, AL, Fort Rucker, AL,
    the Naval Facilities Engineering Command PWD Mid-South in Millington,
    TN, and the Corp of Engineers in Memphis, TN.
        Following is a listing of principal duties of this SBA PCR.
        The SBA PCR is responsible for representing the SBA at the
    foregoing assigned installations on all matters pertaining to
    procurement policy or operations that affect SBA's programs or small
    business concerns, interest in, or doing business with, these
    installations. The PCR reviews procurement plans and programs of the
    installation with the head of the installation or director of
    procurement. She evaluates their impact on small business and
    recommends changes to enhance small business participation. She
    develops individual plans of operation for each installation which will
    ensure adequate consideration of small business and a fair share of
    awards to small business.
        The SBA PCR takes appropriate action to resolve policy and/or
    procedural deviations which have significant adverse impact on contract
    awards to small business anticipated or made by the installation. The
    PCR reviews types and classes of items to determine which ones can be
    set-aside for small businesses.
        The SBA PCR reviews all significant procurements not set-aside by
    class action or unilateral action on the part of the installation and
    takes appropriate action to facilitate individual set-aside action on
    procurements on which research indicates the expectation of sufficient
    small business competition.
        In some cases, the PCR may also review procurements that have been
    set-aside for small business to see if they might be suitable for the
    8(a) Program or for HUBZone, service-disabled veteran-owned, or women-
    owned small business; and, if so, the PCR takes appropriate action on a
    case-by-case basis to facilitate a more targeted set-aside.
        As required by Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (Public Law
    95-507), the PCR reviews pre-award proposed subcontracting plans
    submitted by apparent successful bidders and offerors. The PCR advises
    the contracting officer if plans provide maximum practicable
    opportunities for small business in accordance with the statute and
    regulations. If not, the PCR negotiates with contracting officer to
    resolve differences.
        The SBA PCR develops technical data on specifications and
    specialized equipment necessary to produce items on which there is
    limited or no small business competition so as to provide small firms
    with the opportunity to compete. The PCR reviews local regulations and
    instructions which have an impact on small business concerns to ensure
    conformity with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and brings
    deviations that are harmful to small business to the attention of
    proper procurement officials for correction.
        The SBA PCR appeals unwarranted rejections or withdrawals of set-
    asides to the commanding officer or to the head of the installation,
    and suspends procurement until the set-aside issue is resolved. If not
    resolved at the installation level, the PCR prepares and documents
    files for set-aside appeals to the Agency headquarters level by the SBA
    Administrator.
        The SBA PCR personally develops small business sources for
    procurements on which such competition is needed or initiates action
    for other SBA offices to develop such sources. The PCR takes action to
    assure that competent small business concerns are included on the
    source list for negotiated procurement.
        The SBA PCR studies the history of sole source procurement and
    recommends specific components for direct competitive purchase by the
    Government, either through component breakout or breakout under the
    high dollar spare parts procedures. The PCR studies individual sole
    source procurement and recommends that complete specifications and
    drawings be obtained from the sole source contractor when the
    Government has purchased the rights to them, that competitive
    procurements be made, and that sources furnished by SBA be given the
    opportunity to compete.
        The SBA PCR conducts interviews with representatives of small
    business concerns and advises them how and where to sell their products
    to the Government. She directs them to the cognizant purchasing
    offices, and, when appropriate, arranges for these firms to contact the
    proper SBA representative, Certificate of Competency Specialist,
    Commercial Market Representative, Size Specialist, or Small and
    Disadvantaged Business Specialist.
        The SBA PCR participates in the establishment of small business
    award goals at installations for which the she is responsible. The PCR
    evaluates the rationale on which goals are based and negotiates with
    procurement officials for the raising of targets when data warrants
    such action.
        The SBA PCR conducts periodic seminars for interested small
    businesses, either alone or with other Federal agencies, to provide an
    update for the small business community in the area regarding changes
    in procurement regulations and/or policies which affect them.
        The SBA PCR is responsible for the screening, identification, and
    referral of all procurements to be used in the 8(a) programs nationally
    at the installations covered.
        Question. Does this PCR also cover the Stennis Space Flight Center
    in Mississippi?
        Answer. Yes, as noted above, Ms. Jenkins also covers the Stennis
    Space Flight Center.
        Question. Please provide information on the status and whether
    there is any demonstrated success of current Michoud small business
    utilization efforts.
        Answer. The attached chart contains the actuals of the two major
    contracts currently being performed at Michoud Assembly Facility by the
    Lockheed Martin Corporation. As reflected in the chart, on the External
    Tank contract, Small Businesses are receiving 21 percent of the total
    contract value, which equates to $471.2 million, and on the Facility
    Operations contract, Small Businesses are receiving 21.3 percent of the
    total contract value, which equates to $42.3 million. Lockheed is
    exceeding the negotiated small business goals for both of these
    contracts.

         LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY EXTERNAL TANK AND CONSOLIDATED FACILITY CONTRACTS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Awarded to SB of total
                                                                            award             Facility     Percent
                                                                 --------------------------  NNM04AA02F    Achieved
                                                                     Amount      Percent
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current Contract Amount.....................................     $2,247.7  ...........        $98.4  ...........
    Small Business..............................................       $471.2         21.0        $42.3         21.3
    Small Disadvantage Business.................................       $109.3          4.9        $22.5         11.3
    Woman Owned Small Business..................................        $71.5          3.2         $2.6          1.3
    HUBZone.....................................................  ...........  ...........          $.4           .2
    Veteran Owned Small Business................................  ...........  ...........        $14.8          7.5
    Small Disadvantage Veteran Owned Small Business.............  ...........  ...........          $.2           .1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: The external tank contract is NAS8-00016, and the facility contract is NNM04AA02F. Lockheed Martin
      provides this support to MSFC at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. These are MSFC contacts.

                          ENHANCED USE LEASE AUTHORITY

        Question. Describe the estimated workforce impact of the expanded
    Enhanced Use Lease authority on the ability to provide additional
    employment opportunities at Michoud over the next five years.
        Answer. Enhanced Use Leasing (EUL) will support NASA's efforts to
    develop underutilized real property at the Michoud Assembly facility
    (MAF), offsetting job losses from the sunset of the External Tank
    project. EUL will provide a benefit that will assist in marketing and
    developing new tenants. It will also allow NASA more flexibility in
    using the income to help reduce the cost of maintaining this national
    asset.
        MAF is playing a major role in the Constellation program including
    the manufacture of the Orion Command Module structure, the Service
    Module structure, and the Ares I Upper Stage at MAF. Starting in 2012,
    manufacturing of Ares V Boost Stage, and Ares Earth Departure Stage are
    planned for MAF as well. There is significant potential and incentive
    for private entities to locate on the site to take advantage of common
    pursuits. Enhanced Use Leasing can support and provide a vehicle for
    these pursuits. Commercial use of the space, by tier 2, 3, or 4 Space
    program suppliers is expected. The proximity of suppliers can increase
    their understanding of NASA program requirements and ease product
    delivery, expanding the skill base and workforce pool needed to execute
    NASA's next generation of vehicles.
        While it is too early to project workforce estimates, NASA's keen
    interest in preserving the talented workforce at MAF will be key to EUL
    developments. Enhanced Use Lease will allow MAF to either reduce or
    avoid increases to its facilities overhead burden and to develop
    revenue streams for sustaining certain facilities and infrastructure.
        NASA MAF has met with other Federal and NASA EUL implementers, such
    as the Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory, to discuss
    their business model for developing their science and technology park.
    MAF has specific, unique capabilities which can be utilized or expanded
    by EUL partners. These capabilities include extensive infrastructure
    for design, manufacturing, and testing of extremely large aerospace
    structures; their transportation and handling including a deep-water
    port; and the specialized environmental permits, wastewater treatment
    capability, and compliance management for large vehicle manufacturing.
        Question. Does NASA recommend any additional steps that can be
    taken by the State of Louisiana to take full advantage of this expanded
    authority at Michoud?
        Answer. As the Senator is aware, MAF hosts the National Center for
    Advanced Manufacturing (NCAM), a Federal, State, and University
    sponsored partnership. The NCAM is currently involved in discussions
    with the State to assess workforce retraining and benefit strategies to
    make sure the current MAF workforce can have full access to proper
    training to attract potential new tenants.

                      ADDITIONAL BRIDGE EMPLOYMENT EFFORTS

        Question. I would be interested if NASA could provide some specific
    recommendations for priority areas that Congress and the State of
    Louisiana can work with NASA to provide significant ``bridge''
    employment to help retain workers at the Michoud facility.
        In particular, are there any other Federal government programs,
    such as those at the Economic Development Administration, the Small
    Business Administration's Historically Underutilized Business Zone
    (HUBzone) Program, or Department of Labor assistance programs which
    could help the economic impact of workforce reductions at the Michoud
    Facility?
        Please provide any additional areas that the Congress and/or State
    of Louisiana could help provide bridge employment at the Michoud
    facility.
        Answer. NASA does not have a recommendation at this time. Lockheed-
    Martin, the prime contractor at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) for
    the Space Shuttle Program External Tank, is investigating employee
    placement and potential new ``within the company'' work assignments to
    MAF as a facility user following the end of External Tank production.
    NASA will continue to investigate alternate business opportunities for
    the MAF workforce skill types and identify these to the Committee and
    Lockheed-Martin when known. NASA will investigate, during fiscal year
    2009, assistance from other Federal Government programs to affect
    economic impact from MAF work changes.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Question. The Western United States depends upon information
    collected by the thermal infrared instrument (TIR) on the NASA Landsat
    satellite to measure and monitor water supply and use. However, I
    understand that you have stated that building the TIR will delay the
    launch schedule for Landsat 8. Other than funding, are there any other
    factors that would preclude you from building the TIR and including it
    on Landsat 8 without delaying the scheduled launch?
        Answer. There are no substantial technical challenges associated
    with adding a thermal infrared (TIR) instrument to the Landsat Data
    Continuity Mission (LDCM). The challenges are in cost and schedule. TIR
    is not in the LDCM cost baseline, as the LDCM conceptual design did not
    include a requirement for thermal imaging. The schedule challenge
    arises from the risk of lengthening the potential data gap between
    Landsat 7 and LDCM, although NASA's current schedule projections for
    LDCM regardless of whether it flies a TIR indicate that the mission
    will not be ready for a July 2011 launch as originally planned.
        Question. NASA facilities and contractors in California are helping
    to develop and build the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle for the
    Constellation Program; and many key components for the Space Shuttle
    program. The current shuttle fleet is scheduled to be retired in 2010,
    leaving the United States without domestic capacity for manned space
    flight. What level of funding is needed to restore NASA's manned space
    flight capacity before 2015?
        Answer. Full funding of NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget request for
    Constellation is needed so that we can continue successful transition
    between the Shuttle and the Orion and Ares I. The fiscal year 2009
    budget request maintains Orion initial operational capability (IOC) in
    March 2015 at a 65 percent cost confidence level and full operational
    capability (FOC) in fiscal year 2016, though NASA is working to bring
    this new vehicle online sooner. In order to accelerate the Ares I and
    Orion IOC, and provide for a 65 percent cost confidence level for a
    September 2014 IOC instead of March 2015, an additional $350 million in
    fiscal year 2009 and an additional $400 million in fiscal year 2010
    would be required.
        The Agency is considering a number of options for minimizing that
    gap, including maintaining an aggressive development schedule for
    Orion/Ares I. However, keeping the Space Shuttle flying past 2010 is
    simply not a credible way to address this issue. The Agency cannot
    continue flying the Space Shuttle while simultaneously and aggressively
    developing the next-generation exploration systems under the
    Constellation program. Maintaining even a minimal capability to launch
    two Shuttle flights per year after fiscal year 2010 would require
    nearly the same infrastructure and vendor capabilities we have today,
    at a cost of approximately $2.7-$4 billion per year, which would likely
    come at the expense of Constellation development. In addition, the
    Constellation architecture is designed to take advantage of Space
    Shuttle infrastructure, production capabilities, and workforce once
    they are no longer needed for flying the Shuttle. If the Shuttle were
    kept flying past 2010, these capabilities could not be released for
    Constellation's modification and use. As a result, keeping Shuttle
    flying past 2010 would only compound the problem of getting
    Constellation into service and would not reduce the period between
    Shuttle retirement and the availability of a new U.S. crew transport
    capability.
        Question. The United States faces an imminent gap in both cargo and
    crew carriage to the International Space Station after retirement of
    the Shuttle in 2010. If NASA were to pursue domestic carriage through
    the exercise of the COTS Capability D (manned) option, how quickly
    could this occur, how much would Capability D cost over what period of
    time, and when is the soonest date that a domestic, commercial provider
    could become available?
        Answer. NASA estimates that industry would require a development
    period of between 3-6 years until a fully operational Capability D for
    crew transportation and rescue services would be available. Even if
    Capability D becomes operationally available during this timeframe,
    NASA will still need to purchase Russian Soyuz crew transportation and
    rescue services to fill any gap between Shuttle retirement and the
    projected Capability D operationally available date. NASA prefers to
    purchase U.S. commercial crew transportation and rescue services once
    they have been demonstrated rather than purchase Russian Soyuz
    services.
        Credible industry proposals for Capability D would need to take
    into consideration an extended development period, major financial
    investments, and high infrastructure costs. In order for NASA to
    initiate the first phase of a Capability D option, funding on the order
    of a few hundred million dollars per partner would have to be made
    available through the development period. NASA estimates that an
    industry partner would have to spend well over $1 billion in the
    development of Capability D, either from company reserves or from
    outside investments in addition to the NASA funding. NASA believes that
    a co-investment approach would appropriately balance the government's
    contribution with the desire to stimulate the market and ensure
    commitment from industry for a follow on procurement of demonstrated
    crew transportation services. This approach would be consistent with
    the current funded Space Act Agreements with SpaceX and Orbital
    Sciences Corporation for development and demonstration of cargo
    delivery.
        Question. Are you confident that the Joint Dark Energy Mission that
    results from NASA's competition will be within the range of all of the
    explicit scientific objectives and expectations laid out by the
    National Research Council in its report on ``Beyond Einstein''
    missions?
        Answer. Yes. From the National Academies' National Research
    Council's major findings, a Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) mission
    will set the standard in the precision of its determination of the
    distribution of dark energy in the distant universe. By clarifying the
    properties of 70 percent of the mass-energy in the universe, JDEM's
    potential for fundamental advancement of both astronomy and physics is
    substantial. A JDEM mission will also bring important benefits to
    general astronomy. In particular, JDEM will provide highly detailed
    information for understanding how galaxies form and acquire their mass.
        NASA will use the National Academies' National Research Council's
    report and other related reports in preparing the Announcement of
    Opportunity (AO) for JDEM science investigations. Potential to meet
    JDEM science objectives will be a principal selection criterion. NASA
    continues to work with ESA and others to prepare for future missions
    such as LISA and Con-X to meet additional objectives of NASA's Physics
    of the Cosmos program which include the Beyond Einstein science.
        Question. The proposed budget transfers the space communications
    networks from Science to Space Operations. What is the purpose of this
    transfer and will funding for these activities be fully maintained
    after the transfer?
        Answer. The consolidation of the Agency's Space Communications and
    Navigation (SCaN) activities under a single management organization
    will move NASA away from individual solutions, providing instead an
    integrated, efficient and effective approach to meeting NASA's evolving
    SCaN needs. As part of this consolidation, NASA transferred all
    budgetary matters related to SCaN to this new organization, presently
    known as the SCaN Program Office (within the Space Operations Mission
    Directorate). The SCaN Program Office will draw on the commonality in
    the hardware, software and operations in the existing networks to
    integrate all of these networks under a single architecture, capable of
    meeting all of NASA's growing SCaN needs. The efficiency that NASA can
    achieve from this integration will provide the Agency with more
    effective SCaN services into the future and will enable the leveraging
    of cost savings into upgrading and modernizing the aging SCaN
    infrastructure. NASA anticipates that all existing activities will not
    only be maintained, they will also be enhanced to more effectively
    enable NASA's spaceflight and exploration missions.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    April 10 when we will take testimony from the Attorney General.
    Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Thursday, April 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2009

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008

                                           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, Leahy, Feinstein, Shelby, and
    Alexander.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, and Science will come to order.
        Today, the subcommittee will take testimony from the
    Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Mukasey. We welcome
    him for his first appearance here and look forward to a very
    straightforward, candid conversation.
        We have been informed that at approximately 11 o'clock,
    there will be a series of votes on budget issues affecting our
    housing foreclosure situation.
        We're going to do our best to finish the hearing in the
    next hour. To that end, I'm going to ask unanimous consent that
    my full opening statement be in the record. I'll say a few
    remarks, turn to my able colleague, Senator Shelby of Alabama,
    who, too, has responsibilities on the floor this morning. We
    understand our colleague, Senator Alexander, is offering an
    amendment in 15 minutes on the Senate floor and we know he
    wants to pose a question to the Attorney General and get an
    answer in writing from the Department.
        This morning is a hearing on the budget for the Department
    of Justice (DOJ). It is a very important hearing because this
    year's appropriation, when we pass it, will be the operating
    budget for the first year of the next president.
        We need to understand that the fiscal year begins October
    1. We'll get a new president on January 20. That new President
    will inherit what we present to him in the operating budget of
    the Department of Justice.
        To that end, we have to be very clear on what our national
    priorities are. We have to do all we can to work with the
    Attorney General in restoring the integrity of the Justice
    Department, improving morale at the Justice Department, and at
    the same time meeting our very serious domestic
    responsibilities of: fighting violent crime, protecting women,
    protecting children, and making sure that the grassroots law
    enforcement is a partner with the Federal Government. This is
    what our focus of our hearing will be.
        We'll also look at accountability at the Justice Department
    and make sure that we are stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
    We know that the Justice Department has faced many challenges
    over the last several months. There's been the torture memos,
    the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the FBI's national security
    letters being mismanaged and problems with the terrorist watch
    list, and the reforms called for in the 9/11 Commission report
    have not been fully implemented.
        We're also deeply concerned about the overall budget at the
    Justice Department. The Justice Department has been cut by 2
    percent. That doesn't sound like a lot but when we look at the
    responsibilities of the Justice Department, we see they have
    responsibilities ranging from enforcing our antitrust laws to
    enforcing our civil rights laws as well as the role the Justice
    Department is supposed play by offering grants to State and
    local governments.
        Number 1, to fight violent crime where there is a terrible
    surge in violent crime. Violent crime is up, murders, rapes,
    and other heinous activity continue to rise. We need to make
    sure local law enforcement is partner with us and we're a
    partner with them. We're deeply concerned about the slashing
    cuts to the COPS Program and to the Byrne JAG program.
        Then we look at those crimes that are just despicable.
    Despicable crimes are crimes against children. As a former
    child abuse worker, I feel very passionate about this. Sexual
    predators stalking our children, child abuse, and attacks on
    women continue to plague our communities. So, we do not cut
    these important programs as the President proposes--we're very
    concerned about the drastic cuts and the elimination of
    programs like Adam Walsh, and the Violence Against Women Act
    proposed by the President.
        We note that the YWCA is here, as they always are, standing
    up for women. We wear our colors with you today in solidarity.
        You can applaud but just know that we and the good men up
    here are in solidarity with you.
        We also want to be accountable and we want to look at the
    grant programs to make sure that every dollar we have counts.
    No more $4 Swedish meatballs. We're going to make sure that
    when we issue those grants, that they are done in a timely
    manner and subject to rigorous peer-review process.
        There are many issues that I will raise in my questioning,
    but I think it's time now to move to the substance of our
    hearing and I would turn to Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Mr.
    Attorney General, thank you for joining us here today to
    discuss your budget with the Department of Justice.
        The total Department of Justice budget for the fiscal year
    2009 is $22.9 billion. This is $500 million or 2 percent
    decrease below the fiscal year 2008 level.
        While the Department of Homeland Security request from the
    administration has grown seven to 10 percent each year since
    its inception, the Justice Department request continues to
    shrink by 2 to 3 percent each year.
        The chairwoman and I are concerned about the Justice
    Department continuing to be the world's premier law enforcement
    entity with these continuous decreasing budgets.
        As I've said in the past, the budget constraints placed
    upon us will once again force us to make touch decisions. The
    chairwoman has covered most of the budget in her opening
    statement, so I won't repeat all that, but I do have a number
    of issues I think we need to discuss here today.
        First, I want to recognize and extend my appreciation to
    the men and women of the Justice Department who protect this
    country from terrorism and crime each and every day. We all owe
    them a debt of gratitude.
        As in past years, the administration continues to propose
    eliminating State and local law enforcement programs which is
    troubling. These programs are the lifeblood of police
    departments throughout the Nation. I will join with the
    chairwoman in rejecting the proposals.
        The U.S. Marshals Service, regional fugitives task force,
    track down and apprehend the dangerous fugitives on our
    streets. The fugitives are some of the worst of the worst,
    usually averaging more than four prior arrests per fugitive.
        The six regional task forces arrested approximately 95,000
    felony fugitives last year. These task forces are proven and
    multiply. The Marshals Service may be the smallest Federal law
    enforcement agency but they have arrested more fugitives than
    all other Federal agencies combined, yet there are no new
    resources for their efforts in the budget.
        The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
    which Senator Mikulski mentioned, estimates there are currently
    more than 100,000 sex offenders who have failed to register as
    required under the Adam Walsh Act. These predators are working,
    attending school, and living in proximity to our children
    unbeknownst to the parents and law enforcement officials.
        The Marshals Service is the lead agency in the enforcement
    of the Adam Walsh Act. The Congressional Budget Office
    conservatively estimates it would cost $220 million over a 5-
    year period for the Marshals Service to hire 350 new deputy
    marshals as required by the law, to locate and hunt down these
    unregistered sex offenders.
        John Walsh said the following after the signing of the act,
    and I quote, ``Legislation without the resources to back it up
    is nothing more than a photo op and yet the Department has
    requested no new resources for 2009 to reduce the number of sex
    offenders from our streets.''
        Is this giving sex offenders a free ride? What kind of
    message does this budget send? The administration also proposes
    to task the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
    (ATF) with additional Southwest border responsibilities,
    highlighting cross-border arms trafficking, yet only a paltry
    $948,000 out of $100 million is requested to carry out this
    mission.
        This means that the ATF agents investigating violent crime,
    arson and gang-related activities will be relocated to the
    border. The baseline request in this budget doesn't even
    support the existing missions of the law enforcement agencies
    in the Department of Justice.
        There's no doubt we have a crisis on the Southwest border.
    Fund the Southwest border enhancement at the levels requested
    will remove the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), ATF, the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Marshals Service
    from our communities. These communities are already stretched
    in dealing with increased crime and receive less fiscal support
    from the Department of Justice.
        Mr. Attorney General, it's been brought to my attention
    that individuals in the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
    have attempted to derail the 2006 report language that we
    requested directing the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
    an independent forensics study.
        Once completed, this study will produce an unbiased and, we
    hope, independent assessment of the present and future needs of
    the forensics community, providing a roadmap of best practices.
        Current and former employees of the National Institute of
    Justice, along with lobbyists and contractors, have attempted
    to undermine and influence the National Academy study. On
    December 17 and 18 of this past year, the Deputy Director of
    the National Institute of Justice even convened a
    counterproductive forensic summit here in Washington. Many of
    the attendees deemed the summit a huge waste of more than
    $300,000 in taxpayers' funds.
        Also while investigating this matter, our staff discovered
    potential conflicts of interest, unethical behavior and a
    serious void of transparency where lobbyists, including former
    DOJ employees, were contracted to NIJ to conduct policy-forming
    studies and surveys. These same lobbyists, while writing these
    unbiased policies for the Department of Justice, are also
    representing clients whose business success depends on the
    results of the studies and surveys that lobbyists conducted.
        I'm not so sure the seriousness of this matter has the full
    attention of the leadership of the Department of Justice. I
    hope and encourage you to check into this matter.
        I would be remiss if I did not express my dismay at the
    Department's position or lack thereof on the recent passage of
    the Second Chance Act. In what will be a year of tough budget
    decisions, numerous re-entry, recidivism prevention, and
    prisoner education studies and programs were created.
        Most of the programs and studies already exist, yet the
    Department of Justice was silent throughout the process. A lot
    of us are troubled by section 231 related to prisoner re-entry
    procedures that ``ensure that priority is given to the re-entry
    needs of high-risk populations, such as sex offenders and
    career criminals.
        To a degree, I believe in re-entry and any recidivism
    programs, but in a tight budget year when we have to make
    choices, I think we should prioritize and ensure that the needs
    of victims and law enforcement officers are supported before
    giving any consideration whatsoever to the welfare of
    criminals.
        There are currently more than 70 programs at DOJ. Each
    program has its own constituency, you know. This legislation
    provides more welfare and career counseling by pedophiles and
    career criminals on our bill than we give to victims and most
    of our children.
        Sex offenders, a lot of people believe, cannot be
    rehabilitated, yet this bill would give them priority in
    receiving Federal taxpayer assistance to reintegrate into our
    neighborhoods.
        The Department should be extremely proud of its personnel
    stationed overseas. The ATF, FBI, DEA, Marshals Service, and
    U.S. attorneys all play vital roles in protecting our country.
        I understand the chairwoman has endorsed the efforts to
    provide Byrne State and local law enforcement funding in the
    upcoming emergency supplemental bill and Senator Mikulski knows
    we all have our support.
        Last, Mr. Attorney General, you have a lifetime appointment
    as a Federal judge in the Department of Justice. Since your
    arrival, morale has risen and we're seeing signs that you're
    having success in the rising shift. I commend you for that and
    congratulate you for your efforts and your commitment.
        Thank you for appearing before us today.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Shelby. We are not
    having opening statements by other members, but we want to get
    to their points quickly, Mr. Attorney General, but we note that
    Senator Alexander has to leave at 10:20 to offer an amendment
    on the Senate floor.
        Senator, I know you want to just ask your question and that
    way, it will ensure that your question gets asked, but we'll
    save the answer when the Attorney General gets the answers to
    questions.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
    thank you for your service, Mr. Attorney General.
        I can pose my question in 2 minutes. This is the 1-year
    anniversary of Nashville's participation in the 287(g) program
    whereby local law enforcement officials are trained to identify
    illegal immigrants. The number identified has risen from 150 to
    3,000. The majority of those are transported to Oakdale,
    Louisiana, through Perry, Alabama, for their bond hearing.
        My question is: Given the increase from 150 to 3,000, and
    given the fact that it would save Federal tax dollars not to
    transport them to Oakdale, Louisiana, where they have a 26-hour
    bus ride home, and given the fact that we'd like to process
    illegal immigrants more speedily, and as an element of fairness
    to the defendants who have to pay for their own bus ride home,
    would you be willing to seriously consider placing an
    immigration judge in Nashville where there are 400 vacant beds
    in the metro jail and all this could be done more quickly?
        I thank the chairwoman for her time and I'll look forward
    to a written answer.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
        Mr. Attorney General.
        Attorney General Mukasey. Good morning, Chairwoman
    Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, Senator Leahy, Senator
    Feinstein, Senator Alexander, other members of the
    subcommittee.
        I'm here to present the president's fiscal year 2009 budget
    for the Department of Justice. I was advised both before the
    hearing and during the chairwoman's remarks that this will be a
    somewhat abbreviated hearing and so I'm going to try to
    abbreviate my own introductory remarks on the fly as I give
    them so that I don't use up an inordinate amount of time.
        But I do want to say that since my nomination was approved
    by the Senate and I arrived at the Department, I've confirmed
    what I hoped and expected to find, namely men and women who are
    talented, who are hard working, who are dedicated to fulfilling
    the Department's historic mission. As you're aware, the
    Department is charged with defending the interests of the
    United States, according to the law, ensuring public safety
    against threats, both foreign and domestic, and seeking just
    punishment for law-breakers, assisting our State and local
    partners and ensuring fair and impartial administration of
    justice for all Americans.
        I have looked for opportunities during my tenure to work
    with Congress to ensure that the Department is provided the
    statutory tools and the necessary resources to fulfill those
    important mandates and I'm here to continue to do that.
        The Department relies on funding from this subcommittee to
    pursue our mission and enhance our efforts in the areas that
    need it, and I thank you very much for your continued support
    of the Department.
        I very much look forward to continuing to work with each of
    you this year to advance the budget that will help achieve that
    mission.
        My written statement addresses in detail the Department's
    budget. Obviously I'm not going to go into the detail that's
    addressed in that statement.
        The total request is $22.7 billion. Those funds will allow
    us to accomplish our broadbased mission and to focus on several
    of the priorities that I've had occasion to discuss in other
    settings. Those priorities include national security, violent
    crime, immigration and border security as well as public
    corruption.
        Now, we've advanced enhancements. First, the proposal to
    increase the resources dedicated to the national security in
    counterterrorism by $492.7 million, which includes resources
    that are necessary to improve the counterterrorism programs
    that are contained in the National Security Division and the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation.
        Second, the budget dedicates an additional $100 million to
    the Southwest Border Enforcement Program. Those funds will
    provide essential resources, personnel and infrastructure that
    are required to address illegal immigration, drug trafficking,
    gun smuggling across the Southwest border.
        Third, the budget requests funds to support essential
    Federal detention and incarceration programs that provide the
    infrastructure necessary to the Department's law enforcement
    personnel and prosecutors to carry out those responsibilities.
    I believe the enhancements there total approximately $67
    million.
        As programs, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods and the
    Southwest border initiative, investigate and prosecute
    dangerous criminals, the Department has to be ready to keep
    those individuals in a safe, secure and humane environment that
    also assures the safety of our staff in those prisons.
        And finally, the budget fully funds the base and reflects
    the Department's strategy to work in partnership with State and
    local and tribal authorities and to target funding to address
    the most significant needs in each of our communities. It's our
    collective obligation to ensure that those resources, whether
    spent on Federal efforts or in support of our State and local
    partners, are used wisely and in a way that's calculated to
    achieve the most significant impact.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this budget, and I
    thank you for inviting me to be here today. I'm going to try to
    answer any questions that you might have, including the
    questions that were posed by Senator Alexander before he had to
    leave.
        [The information follows:]

                        Immigration Judges in Nashville

        The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible
    for the detention and transportation of aliens within their
    custody. Immigration judges are part of the Department of
    Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
    Immigration judges adjudicate cases of aliens who are placed in
    removal proceedings by DHS and charged with violations of the
    immigration laws.
        The volume, nature, and geographic concentration of
    immigration judge caseload is tied directly to initiatives
    undertaken by DHS. In general, however, not all cases
    identified under 287(g) programs are cases that necessarily
    result in a hearing before an immigration judge. In appropriate
    cases, DHS may elect to use alternatives, such as reinstatement
    of removal orders against aliens who had previously been
    ordered removed.
        With respect to the location of hearings before an
    immigration judge, EOIR holds immigration hearings in over 50
    immigration courts and numerous other hearing locations. For
    cases involving detained aliens, immigration hearings can occur
    at certain federal, state, and local correctional facilities
    and DHS detention facilities. When the caseload does not
    support the opening of a full-time, independent court, EOIR
    works with DHS to maximize immigration judge resources by use
    of video or telephone conferencing at various hearing locations
    or scheduling traveling immigration judges to appear on a
    routine basis.
        In fiscal year 2007, over 9,100 cases were received and
    completed in the Oakdale Louisiana Immigration court, a
    significant increase over previous fiscal years. Most
    individuals who are detained for immigration violations in
    Nashville and who need to go before an immigration judge are
    ultimately transported by DHS to Oakdale, based on DHS's
    regional processing plan.
        Currently, Tennessee has an immigration court in Memphis
    with two immigration judges. Cases received in Memphis are
    adjudicated in a timely manner and include cases of aliens
    primarily from Tennessee and Arkansas. Individuals detained in
    Nashville, Tennessee who seek bond hearings may file in the
    Memphis court for a telephonic hearing. Should DHS begin
    detaining aliens in Nashville, the Department of Justice would
    work with DHS to identify the appropriate immigration judge
    resources needed to adjudicate the cases.

        Attorney General Mukasey. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney
    General.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Michael B. Mukasey

        Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and
    Members of the Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to appear before you
    today to present the President's fiscal year 2009 budget for the U.S.
    Department of Justice (Department). Before I begin, I would like to
    thank you for your continued support of the Department's mission and
    your recognition of the important work that we do.
        The Department is charged with defending the interests of the
    United States according to the law; ensuring public safety against
    threats both foreign and domestic; seeking just punishment for
    lawbreakers; assisting our state and local partners; and ensuring fair
    and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. The
    Department's ability to pursue this mission is dependent on the funding
    that supports our operations and allows us to enhance our efforts in
    the areas that need it.
        The President's budget request for the Department in fiscal year
    2009 is $22.7 billion, which will allow us to accomplish our broad-
    based mission and provide a particular focus on the following critical
    areas: national security, violent crime, immigration and border
    security, and public corruption. More specifically, the President's
    fiscal year 2009 budget request:
      --reflects a 6 percent total increase over the fiscal year 2008
            enacted budget for law enforcement and prosecution programs;
      --increases the resources dedicated to national security and
            counterterrorism efforts by $492.7 million;
      --enhances the Department's capacity to address violent crime through
            a strategy to target grant funding to the places and problems
            that need it most;
      --dedicates an additional $100 million for the Southwest Border
            Enforcement Initiative to enforce federal laws, including
            immigration laws, along the border; and
      --continues the Department's focus on prosecuting public corruption.
        During a time of limited resources and tough decisions, I am
    grateful that the Committee continues to support the Department's
    mission and these priorities.
        Understanding that our time together is limited, my testimony today
    highlights key budget priorities that support our efforts to enhance
    national security and protect our homeland. Although we have a number
    of key priorities for which we are requesting enhancements, I want to
    emphasize that one of our goals is also to fund base operations for the
    Department and its missions. I will also discuss the Department's
    proposal to target state and local funding in a way that supports these
    priorities and leverages our limited resources.
        First, since the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, the
    Department has mobilized its resources to help protect the Nation. In
    that time, this Committee has strongly and repeatedly shown its support
    of the Department's efforts in the war against terror. The President's
    fiscal year 2009 proposal asks this Committee to continue its support
    by providing the Department with the resources necessary to expand and
    improve the counterterrorism programs of the National Security Division
    and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
        Second, the budget seeks funds to improve the Department's ability
    to combat crime along the Southwest Border. This budget request takes
    into account the full range of essential resources, personnel, and
    infrastructure required to address illegal immigration, drug
    trafficking, and gun smuggling across that border.
        Third, the budget requests funds to support essential federal
    detention and incarceration programs that provide the infrastructure
    necessary for the Department's law enforcement personnel and
    prosecutors to carry out their responsibilities. As programs such as
    Project Safe Neighborhoods and the Southwest Border Enforcement
    Initiative investigate and prosecute dangerous criminals, the
    Department must be ready to segregate those individuals from the
    general population in a safe and secure environment.
        Finally, the budget reflects the Department's strategy to work in
    partnership with state, local, and tribal authorities and target
    funding to address the most significant needs in those communities. It
    is our collective obligation to ensure that our resources--whether
    expended on federal efforts or in support of our state and local
    partners--are used wisely and in a way calculated to achieve the most
    significant impact.

        NATIONAL SECURITY: PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY PREVENTING
                                 TERRORIST ACTS

        As I testified during the Department's oversight hearings earlier
    this year, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the first
    priority of the Justice Department has been to protect Americans from
    the threat of international terrorism. All aspects of what the
    Department does, from budget, to allocation of resources, to policy
    development and legislative priorities, must continue to reflect this
    critical aspect of our mission and the reality of the world in which we
    live. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released last
    summer, al Qaeda has ``protected or regenerated key elements of its
    Homeland attack capability'' and continues to look for ``prominent . .
    . targets with the goal of producing mass casualties . . .'' As a
    result, the Department must continue to work aggressively to
    investigate and prosecute terrorists, and we must do so effectively and
    efficiently. To that end, the Department has expended substantial time,
    energy, and resources in improving and streamlining the organization
    and operations of its counterterrorism assets. In just two years, the
    Department has created and brought into full operation the National
    Security Division (NSD), which is dedicated to centralizing and
    improving the Department's ability to carry out its primary national
    security functions. Similarly, the FBI has dramatically improved and,
    in some instances, completely recreated its counterterrorism and
    intelligence collection activities. These improved efforts have allowed
    the Department to utilize its resources and its expertise to
    investigate, thwart, and prosecute terrorist conspiracies more swiftly
    and more effectively.
        The importance of the Department's national security efforts is
    reflected in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget, which requests an
    additional $492.7 million to improve the Nation's counterterrorism
    capabilities to investigate, identify, track, and dismantle terrorist
    cells operating in the United States and abroad. Although these funds
    are allocated for numerous programs and policies, I would like to
    discuss three particular priorities in the national security realm: (1)
    providing the National Security Division with the resources it needs to
    continue its successful and critical operations; (2) providing the FBI
    with necessary funding; and (3) creating a critical wireless network
    for law enforcement operations.

    National Security Division
        The Department created the National Security Division (NSD) in 2006
    to combat terrorism and other national security threats more
    effectively. NSD has been critical to coordinating the Department's law
    enforcement, prosecution, and intelligence functions in the fight
    against terror. As a result of the nature of its work, the Division's
    successes are not always public. But some efforts are, for example the
    trial and conviction of Jose Padilla in the Southern District of
    Florida, and the indictment and conviction of several individuals who
    sought to profit from illegally providing sensitive national security
    information to China. To ensure the continued viability of this
    important contributor to the Department's counterterrorism efforts, the
    President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $84 million in total
    resources to maintain the operations of the National Security Division.

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
        The men and women of the FBI have provided a visible and vital role
    in protecting the Nation's security. Since the attacks of September
    2001, the FBI has implemented a comprehensive plan that has overhauled
    the FBI's counterterrorism operations, expanded its intelligence
    capabilities, begun to modernize its technology, and improved its
    coordination with federal, state, local, and tribal partners. The more
    than 30,000 agents and professional staff of the FBI work tirelessly to
    protect this country. They do so from 56 domestic field offices and 60
    additional locations around the globe. In recognition of the broad
    scope of the FBI's role in protecting the American people, the fiscal
    year 2009 President's budget requests $7.1 billion for the FBI, an
    increase of 6.77 percent. An investment of $447.4 million will support
    the FBI's intelligence and counterterrorism programs, improve
    surveillance capabilities, guard against and respond to incidents
    involving weapons of mass destruction, protect the security of the
    Nation's cyber systems, and add 280 new agents and 271 new intelligence
    analysts.
        Investigations, intelligence, and surveillance are the key tools in
    the fight against terrorism. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget
    recognizes the importance of the investigative and intelligence arms of
    the FBI with an enhancement of $235.5 million slated for operations
    focused on identifying and analyzing national security and criminal
    threats. This amount includes resources for national security
    investigations; cyber security detection and prevention; and foreign
    intelligence gathering and operations. To meet the expanding demands to
    produce and use intelligence to protect the Nation from threats, an
    additional $43.4 million will be used to strengthen the FBI's
    professional workforce to ensure that it has the critical skills,
    competencies, and training to fulfill the FBI's mission. To support
    surveillance technology, an additional $88.5 million is requested to
    sustain operational requirements, including physical and electronic
    surveillance and collection processing exploitation, analysis and
    reporting.
        Promoting partnerships both here and abroad is critical to the
    success of many initiatives. Since September 11, the Department of
    Homeland Security has supported the establishment of approximately 35
    operational fusion centers. These fusion centers foster information-
    sharing between local, state, and federal partners to identify and
    assess emerging threats to the United States. The Department of Justice
    has been an integral partner in these efforts and has dedicated
    personnel and resources to the fusion centers. Together, we have been
    able to leverage existing information-sharing tools and resources. The
    FBI request includes funds to provide secure connectivity to fusion
    centers. Further, our partners in the war against terror extend beyond
    our borders and enhancements totaling $5.7 million will not only
    provide resources for the fusion center program, but also to expand the
    Legal Attache program overseas.
        Finally, the fiscal year 2009 budget seeks additional funds to
    improve the FBI National Academy, one of the premier training
    facilities for law enforcement. An enhancement of $9.8 million is
    requested to augment architectural and engineering services, construct
    roads, and install a new substation to handle an increase in electrical
    power loads. These improvements will address the training facility's
    maintenance issues and allow the FBI Academy to focus on its core
    responsibility of training.

    Improved Communications Capabilities
        All of our law enforcement components--especially those involved in
    national security efforts--need wireless communication capabilities
    that will enable them to fulfill their responsibilities. The current
    DOJ radio systems used nationwide are, on average, between 15 and 20
    years old. We must modernize this technology, even though doing so is
    complicated and expensive. When I visited the border in January, I was
    shown how smugglers have better radio equipment than we provide to our
    federal agents. For example, these criminals have deployed car-battery
    operated surveillance equipment to listen to, and track the movement
    of, our law enforcement agents. Such practices put the lives of our
    brave men and women in great danger.
        To date, our funding has essentially just repaired and maintained
    our legacy systems. The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $43.9 million
    for the creation of an integrated wireless network (IWN) in the
    Washington, D.C. area. This network will allow the Department to begin
    modernizing communication technology so that we can effectively and
    securely communicate across the law enforcement community. The IWN will
    provide new equipment, better security, an improved range, and better
    interoperability among the many jurisdictions that protect the National
    Capital area. The Department intends to implement the IWN on a
    nationwide basis over the next several years.

                          SOUTHWEST BORDER INITIATIVE

        Enforcing the Nation's immigration laws and reducing violent crime
    are two of the Department's significant priorities. Earlier this year,
    I had the opportunity to meet some of the prosecutors and law
    enforcement officers who work every day to secure our borders. For
    those who work along the Southwest Border, their job is particularly
    challenging. In addition to functioning as the point of entry of many
    illegal immigrants coming into this country, the Southwest Border is an
    access point for smuggling drugs into, and guns out of, the United
    States.
        Reducing crime along the Southwest Border requires a wide variety
    of personnel, resources, and infrastructure, spanning a number of
    Department components, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), the
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the U.S. Attorney's Offices
    (USAO). Investigators and law enforcement personnel are necessary to
    police the borders and identify and prevent criminal activity, to
    detain those who are arrested, and to prosecute those who have violated
    the law. Moreover, resources are needed for the immigration courts that
    hear a substantial percentage of the matters arising out of the
    Southwest Border. Each element of this chain is essential to preventing
    crime along the Border. Without adequate funding for all of these
    activities, the other activities will suffer. In recognition of the
    continuing importance of securing our Southwest Border, the President
    has requested an enhancement of $100 million for the Department's
    enforcement and prosecution efforts.
        To combat criminal activity on the Southwest Border, the Department
    will invest resources to prosecute criminals and immigration violators
    as well as to combat drug and gun traffickers and gangs. The Department
    is requesting an enhancement of $20.4 million for the DEA that includes
    funding for 30 additional agents. DEA has long played a central role in
    the counternarcotics strategy to combat the violent drug trafficking
    organizations along our border with Mexico. DEA's strong partnership
    with Mexico has led to success in drug seizures, money laundering,
    arrests, and extraditions. This budget request will allow DEA to add
    investigative and support personnel in locations in close proximity to
    the Southwest Border for purposes of targeted enforcement operations in
    the arrival zone. It will also provide funding to support two
    additional foreign-deployed Advisory and Support Teams (FAST) and
    Operation All-Inclusive, the enforcement arm of DEA's Drug Flow Attack
    Strategy.
        The President's budget also requests an enhancement of nearly a
    million dollars for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives (ATF) to address firearms trafficking on the Southwest
    Border. The impact of firearms related violence has already been felt
    on both sides of the border in Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
    To address such threats, 12 positions are requested to expand ATF's
    ability to provide oversight in the region and to implement a focused
    inspection program to identify straw purchasers, traffickers, and non-
    compliant licensees that are often the source of illegal firearms used
    by violent criminals. ATF agents have reported that weapons are
    flooding into Mexico each week from the United States, with a notable
    percentage linked to drug trafficking organizations. This enhancement
    to ATF's budget will help control the current illegal firearms
    trafficking along the Southwest Border.
        Increased enforcement operations will likely lead to an increased
    number of detainees. More detainees means a greater burden will be
    placed on the U.S. Marshals Service, which apprehends fugitives,
    transports and manages prisoners, protects witnesses, serves court
    documents, manages seized assets, and protects federal judges and
    courts. In just one fiscal year, from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year
    2007, the U.S. Marshals Service prisoner operations along the Southwest
    Border increased by 9 percent, compared to a 2 percent increase in the
    other districts. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests an
    additional $12.7 million for 79 new positions, including 58 Deputy U.S.
    Marshals to handle the increased workload expected on the Southwest
    Border.
        An increase in detainees also means an added responsibility for the
    Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) to provide more
    detainees with housing, medical and hospital care, guard services,
    transportation and other detention-related services. It is anticipated
    that in fiscal year 2009 OFDT will house more than 200,000 detainees in
    both Federal and non-federal facilities. To accommodate this
    anticipated increase, the President's budget requests an additional
    $37.6 million for OFDT.
        Another $10 million in enhancements will provide much needed IT
    equipment for the Executive Office for Immigration and Review (EOIR)'s
    immigration courts. This new IT equipment will improve court hearing
    records and will support the Immigration Review Information Exchange
    System, which will allow mission critical information to be shared with
    the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies. This
    new digital recording system itself will significantly improve the
    audio quality of immigration court hearings and will also allow the
    immigration judges to operate the system through desk-top computers.
        With an increase in detainees and immigration court hearings, comes
    the need for additional prosecutors. To meet this need, the President's
    fiscal year 2009 budget requests an additional $8.4 million for the
    U.S. Attorneys to support 83 new positions, including 50 Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys who will prosecute cases along the Southwest Border.
    Prosecutors will be focused on human smuggling, drug smuggling,
    homicide, robbery, immigration, hostage taking, money laundering, and
    immigration violation cases. To support the additional attorneys,
    paralegals will also be hired to help keep pace with the mounting
    workload which is expected to significantly increase over the 12,000
    felony cases filed in fiscal year 2007. This increase is attributed to
    more Border Patrol agents who are expected to generate an estimated
    24,000 criminal immigration cases during the next two years.
        The remaining Department enhancements for the Southwest Border
    Initiative includes support for the Criminal Division's efforts to
    reduce gang violence; the Office of Justice Programs to provide funding
    for local prosecutor offices in the four Border States (California,
    Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico); and the Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Force to improve its IT infrastructure and increase
    attorney resources along the Southwest Border.

       SUPPORTING ESSENTIAL FEDERAL DETENTION AND INCARCERATION PROGRAMS

        Since the beginning of this Administration, the Department has
    successfully increased its enforcement efforts in several key areas.
    These enhanced enforcement efforts have led to significant increases in
    the federal detention and prison populations. For example, through the
    Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative, the Department has doubled
    the number of prosecutions for federal firearms crimes over the past
    seven years. As a result of programs such as PSN, the Federal
    government has taken on defendants who would have been prosecuted and
    imprisoned by state and local authorities, resulting in harsher
    penalties. To enable the Department to continue its focus on programs
    such as PSN, the Department requires additional funds to support
    adequate infrastructure to hold those who are arrested and successfully
    prosecuted. The President has requested $67.1 million for the fiscal
    year 2009 budget in order to respond to this need.
        I would also like to take the time to thank the Subcommittee for
    working with the Department so quickly to address the Bureau of
    Prisons' fiscal year 2008 funding needs. There is still more work to be
    done, and your continued support is appreciated.
        Last fiscal year, 7,436 inmates were added to a Federal Prison
    System that was already above rated capacity. As a result, the
    Department needs to increase prison capacity to house the growing
    prison population. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests an
    enhancement of $50 million and 16 positions to add 4,000 beds in
    contract facilities to house low security inmates in fiscal year 2009.
        The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) confines offenders in controlled
    environments of prisons and community-based facilities to help protect
    society from those who violate the law. As a result of tighter
    enforcement along the Southwest Border and an increase in conviction
    rates, BOP estimates that more than 13,000 inmates will be added to the
    federal prison system between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. To
    prepare and care for these new inmates, an additional $17.1 million is
    requested to meet the managed costs of providing security, food,
    medical care, clothing, utilities, unit management, education, records
    and maintenance. Health care costs alone have risen from $9.16 per
    inmate per day in fiscal year 2001 to $11.91 in fiscal year 2007 for
    the more than 200,000 inmates in the Federal Prison System system,
    which includes 114 minimum, low, medium, and high security facilities.
        The request also includes additional funds to recruit, train, and
    employ essential staff for these facilities. Research has shown that
    when the inmate-to-staff ratio increases so does the number of serious
    assaults. The current BOP inmate population exceeds capacity by 37
    percent. While BOP has increased the number of beds and improved
    architectural designs in newer facilities to take advantage of improved
    technology and security measures, this has not been enough to keep pace
    with the increasing population. In addition, the ratio of staff to
    inmates keeps widening. As a result, filling staff positions that have
    direct contact with inmates is a critical priority.
        It is not only the inmate population that has increased, but also
    the number of pre-sentenced detainees housed in detention facilities.
    The President's fiscal year 2009 budget, as part of the Southwest
    Border Initiative, requests $37.6 million for the Office of the Federal
    Detention Trustee (OFDT) to handle this increase of pre-trial
    detainees.

     SUPPORTING OUR STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL PARTNERS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST
                                     CRIME

        The Nation's safety depends on the combined work of law enforcement
    personnel acting at the federal, state, and local levels. The
    Department significantly values the partnerships it has forged with
    state and local authorities to investigate and prosecute serious
    crimes, including matters of national security. We also understand that
    these partnerships, in some cases, require additional funding to
    support local participation.
        In an effort to utilize its resources and target them effectively
    to the areas of greatest need, the Department proposes consolidating 70
    grant programs into four new competitive grant programs: (1) Violent
    Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative; (2) Byrne Public Safety and
    Protection Program; (3) Child Safety and Juvenile Justice Program; and
    (4) Violence Against Women Grants. Through these combined grant
    programs, more than $1 billion will be available in discretionary grant
    assistance for state, local, and tribal governments.
        The President's budget requests $200 million to fund the Violent
    Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative to provide necessary funding to
    those communities who need assistance in responding to violent crime.
    Many communities continue to struggle with violent crime. To assist our
    local partners, last fall the Department invested $75 million in 106
    jurisdictions to combat violent crime through multi-agency and multi-
    jurisdictional partnerships that include at least one federal law
    enforcement agency. The flexibility to meet the needs of those 106
    communities came from the 2007 Joint Resolution, which gave the
    Department discretion in administering crime fighting funds.
        In order to build on the success of that $75 million investment,
    the President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $200 million for the
    Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative. The Initiative will
    address violent crime through multi-jurisdictional law enforcement
    partnerships like those funded this past fall and will use competitive
    grants to combat a jurisdiction's specific violent crime problems. The
    program is designed to address crimes that range from drug trafficking
    to gang activity and to address the crime problems of both large and
    small communities. In addition to providing necessary funds to those
    localities that need assistance, the program is designed to retain the
    flexibility to adjust to changing trends in criminal behavior.
        In fiscal year 2009, the President has requested $200 million for a
    competitive grant program entitled the ``Byrne Public Safety and
    Protection Program.'' This grant program will address several critical
    concerns that confront many law enforcement agencies and the
    jurisdictions they serve, including reducing violent crime; addressing
    substance abuse; enhancing law enforcement information sharing efforts;
    improving the capacity of law enforcement to use forensic evidence and
    reduce the DNA evidence backlogs; addressing human trafficking;
    expanding prisoner re-entry initiatives; and improving services to
    victims of crime. Both government and non-government entities will be
    eligible to apply for the fiscal year 2009 Byrne program.
        With the advent of new technology, we have seen a devastating
    increase in the number of children that are exploited through the
    Internet. In order to help address this problem, the Department is
    proposing the consolidation of several juvenile justice and exploited
    children programs into one new grant program entitled the ``Child
    Safety and Juvenile Justice Program'' for which the President has
    requested $185 million. This new grant program will be both flexible
    and competitive and will focus on reducing incidents of child
    exploitation and abuse through cybercrimes, improving juvenile justice
    outcomes, and addressing school safety needs.
        The fourth new program is entitled ``Violence Against Women
    Grants'' and $280 million has been requested for this initiative. Like
    the other grant programs, this one also consolidates existing programs
    to allow grantees to request funding through a single application to
    support activities previously authorized under multiple grant programs.
    Whereas the other three grant programs I mentioned will be administered
    by the Office of Justice Programs, this one will be administered
    through the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). This new grant
    program will continue to emphasize OVW's focus on enhancing
    collaboration, measuring effectiveness, and maintaining a
    sustainability focus related to ending domestic violence, date rape,
    sexual assaults, and stalking.
        In addition to these four consolidated grant programs, the
    President has also requested funds for the Regional Information Sharing
    System (RISS); the Crime Victims Fund, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
    (BJS); and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

                                   CONCLUSION

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present the
    President's fiscal year 2009 budget. As you know, my tenure in the
    Department to date has been brief, but over the past several months my
    knowledge of, and respect for, the men and women who are protecting and
    serving this country has only grown. And it is with your continued
    support that they can continue to do their jobs to ensure that justice
    is served.
        Today I have highlighted critical areas that require attention and
    resources so that the Department can fulfill its mission to enforce the
    Nation's laws and help protect national security. I hope you agree that
    these are worthy investments for fiscal year 2009. As always, we are
    aware that there are tough decisions and challenges ahead and I look
    forward to working with you as we move forward.
        Once again, thank you for inviting me to be here today. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions you may have.

                              TERRORIST WATCH LIST

        Senator Mikulski. There are many questions related to
    national security and also the role of the Justice Department
    in writing certain legal memos related to everything from wire-
    tapping and surveillance to torture.
        We note that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is
    here and we're sure that he's going to have a robust set of
    questions about these issues.
        I have one question related to the investigations
    surrounding the events around 9/11 and it goes like this. After
    9/11, we found out that terrorists came into this country
    because of the failure of the watch list. The watch list failed
    because there were too many of them and they didn't talk to
    each other, so that if you were a watch list, you essentially
    were a dysfunctional situation.
        Now, 6 years after 9/11, the inspector general recently
    reported unacceptable errors in the terrorist watch lists. I,
    the Attorney General, this isn't Senator Mikulski speaking,
    said DOJ law enforcement agencies do not have a functional
    system for reporting names to the terror watch list, for taking
    names off that are inadvertently placed on there or have a
    similar or identical name to someone we have to keep an eye on.
    The report notes that the FBI is delayed in reporting names to
    the watch list by up to 4 months.
        Now, we're part of the DNI's coordinating team, the
    Director of National Intelligence. Would you tell us what role
    your leadership is playing in ensuring that we have a
    functional watch list system?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Well, we're playing two roles.
    One is in attempting to address the concerns that were
    addressed in the inspector general's report that you mentioned;
    that is, getting people on the watch list that belong there and
    getting people off who don't.
        The difficulty, as you mentioned, has to do in part with
    the way names are placed on the watch list and the way names
    are formulated. There are numerous variations in the spelling
    and formulations of particular names.
        Without getting into details, there are various ways of
    spelling a particular name. Each of those may have to be
    entered on the watch list. Each of those may then have to be
    removed. This is not an easy process, but it's one which we are
    addressing, both in getting names on the list as well as----
        Senator Mikulski. But, Mr. Attorney General, I'm just going
    to jump in here. It's been 6 years since 9/11, 6 years. We've
    also had tremendous breakthroughs in technology. We understand
    the difficulties. It's the same difficulty that always existed.
        What are we doing to end the difficulty and what are we
    doing--do you have a set of--do you have a methodology for
    resolving this problem? Do you have time tables for fixing this
    problem? Do we have the right people solving this problem?
        Every time we turn around, we hear about how hard it is to
    do it. We know it's hard. If it would have been easy, it would
    have been done.
        Attorney General Mukasey. The DNI is the principal person
    who is addressing it. He's the principal person with whom I've
    had conversations.
        It's my understanding that there's an attempt to try to
    infuse technology to address this, but the fact is that because
    names are spelled in various ways, it is a difficult thing to
    make sure that we get everybody on that belongs on and then
    when somebody has to get off, get all the various formulations
    of his name off.
        They're trying to use technology to the extent that it can
    be used, but the variations in spelling of the same name which
    may add up to 6, 7, 8, or 10 variations accounts for the size
    of the list and accounts also for the difficulty of getting
    names off.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, in other words, you say it's the
    DNI's job. The DNI says that's the FBI's role and then we're
    back to where we started.
        I really do believe that there has to be a very high-level
    decision with the DNI, you as the Department of Justice, and
    the FBI and Homeland Security to really get these watch lists
    undertaken.

                                 VIOLENT CRIME

        But, listen, I have a short amount of time. I want to talk
    about violent crime in our communities. Violent crime continues
    to plague our communities. More than ever, State and local
    governments need help putting more cops on the beat. Yet, when
    we look at the Department of Justice's budget, though there's
    an increase for Federal law enforcement, particularly the FBI,
    this has essentially been funded by restructuring State and
    local law enforcement and also eliminating those programs that
    are important to juvenile justice, the Adam Walsh bill, the
    Violence Against Women Act.
        Fiscal year 2009 eliminates the COPS Program which has been
    used to put more cops on the beat and better prepare them. It
    also restructures and eliminates the Byrne grants.
        Could you tell us, number one, what is the rationale in
    eliminating Byrne grants and eliminating the COPS Program which
    is the cops on the beat, and with the elimination of those
    programs, then how does the Department of Justice want to be a
    partner in fighting the surge in violent crime?
        We seem to be good at fighting the surge in Baghdad. I'd
    like to fight the surge in Baltimore.
        Attorney General Mukasey. There have been spikes in violent
    crime, but I think violent crime generally over the last
    several years is down, thanks to a focused effort using task
    forces to address violent crime issues, and we have tried to do
    that in as focused a way as we can.
        What we've tried to do with State and local grants is to
    put them essentially into four categories: violent crime
    reduction, public safety and protection grants generally, child
    safety and juvenile justice, and violence against women, and
    there's been $200 million allocated to violent crime reduction,
    Byrne public safety and protection, a $185 million for child
    safety and juvenile justice, and $280 million to violence
    against women.
        Those are only the grant programs. Our own efforts in that
    area--and you mentioned enforcing the Adam Walsh Act. We
    continue to enforce the Adam Walsh Act at the same level at
    which it was enforced before.
        You're correct in pointing out that the budget contains no
    enhancement for it, but I would point out that it's continuing
    to be enforced at the level it was before. This is the kind of
    effort that was addressed by it; that is, enforcing laws that
    inhibit and restrict and punish exploitation of children. It's
    something we were doing before the passage of the Adam Walsh
    Act. There are designated deputy U.S. Marshals in each district
    to coordinate Adam Walsh Act enforcement, so that potentially
    those deputy U.S. Marshals in each district can be brought to
    bear on the program as it may exist in that district. That's
    the way we're trying to approach it.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, my time is up. I want to turn to
    Senator Shelby. I fundamentally disagree with these premises. I
    think we need a COPS Program, we need a Byrne Program. Last
    year, we funded violence against women at $400 million. It has
    now been reduced.
        Fundamentally, we need to have more people and also one of
    the great ways to deal with violent crime is through these
    intervention efforts like we have in the Juvenile Justice Block
    Grant Program.
        I'm going to come back to my questions, if there's time
    before the vote, but let me turn to Senator Shelby.

                              EXPLOSIVES DATABASE

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Attorney
    General, the establishment of the Office for Bombing Prevention
    was created under the jurisdiction of the Department of
    Homeland Security to address terrorist explosive threats and
    for other purposes.
        This proposal contains language that would provide yet
    another explosives database. The Department already has two
    databases with the ATF and the FBI. If the Department of
    Justice already has, and we do, two databases, you do, why is
    it necessary to create yet another explosives database? It
    seems to be duplication there.
        What will the Department of Homeland Security system
    provide that the Department's current systems do not? I guess
    basically how many computer databases with similar information
    do we need before we have so many, because you have two now and
    you're talking about creating another one. Are you familiar
    with that?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Well, I'm familiar with the fact
    because you mentioned it. I can't speak too precisely what
    would be addressed by the DHS database.
        I will say that the ATF and FBI databases, which you
    mentioned, are vital.
        Senator Shelby. They're very important.
        Attorney General Mukasey. And we appreciate your particular
    efforts to focus those and to center them in a facility that
    will enable us to really exploit the information that they
    gather.
        As you know, they are housed in what might perhaps be
    described, not very charitably, as an enhanced garage in
    Quantico and they're going to be moved to a suitable facility
    in Alabama when that's ready and we're deeply appreciative of
    that because they help not only with explosives analysis here
    but also improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that we get sent
    from Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Attorney General Mukasey. They're very helpful with that.
        Senator Shelby. Well, the FBI's working with the Army on a
    lot of that, are they not, and the ATF, on a lot of these
    explosives and provides explosive devices?
        Attorney General Mukasey. We want to continue that and
    obviously if there's anything that's added by DHS, we're happy
    to accept it. We think the principal effort should be where it
    is, namely with ATF, which does a terrific job, and the Bureau.
        Senator Shelby. Will you get your staff to see what they're
    doing there, and if this is duplication, we need to know?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I certainly will.
        [The information follows:]

     Proposed Creation of a Database Under the Jurisdiction of the Office
           for Bombing Prevention/DHS With Information on Explosives

        The Department supports a multi-layered defense to
    adequately defend against the threat presented by explosives,
    with each layer reducing the ability of terrorists to acquire
    and use IEDs. Training is an important component in ensuring a
    successful defense against IEDs. The Department is not aware of
    DHS' specific IED training curriculum and cannot comment. State
    and local agencies also offer varied curriculums on IED
    training.
        Department of Justice bomb databases located at ATF and the
    FBI are targeted toward investigation of bombing and analysis
    of explosives cases and forensic information.
        ATF's Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS) is a case
    management system used by federal, State, and local agencies
    investigating arsons, bombings, and other explosives incidents.
    ATF developed BATS to allow law enforcement agencies to solve
    arson and bombings crimes by tracking and sharing information
    on these cases and to determine national trends and patterns.
    The system provides law enforcement and fire service officials
    with access to information collected in ATF's U.S. Bomb Data
    Center (USBDC), the repository for all domestic bombing
    incidents. The USBDC, with an information management system
    containing more than 140,000 arson and explosives incidents,
    provides intelligence to ensure the highest degree of
    investigative coordination throughout the law enforcement
    community. The USBDC also supports ATF Certified Explosives
    Specialists (CESs) and Explosives Enforcement Officers (EEOs)
    who are assigned to the Department of Defense Combined
    Explosives Exploitation Cells (CEXC) in Iraq.
        EXPeRT is the FBI's document management system and
    electronic reference library for organizing and making
    available for future reference all the documents, reference
    material, photos, and other information related to explosives
    forensic examinations conducted by the FBI Lab Explosives Unit
    and the Department's Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
    Center (TEDAC). The EXPeRT systems contain searchable tables of
    information on explosives components such as detonators or
    detonating cord, evidence chain of custody data, or other
    tables of information that can be linked to the documents and
    photos in the system based on case ID or other user established
    criteria. EXPeRT is used within the FBI to share case data and
    reference material that support forensic exams and
    investigations, within TEDAC in the DOJ/DOD/INTEL Community to
    share information.
        The DHS Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP) database
    referenced in proposed legislation already exists as the
    National Capability Database (NCAD). The DHS database collects
    and shares information about federal, state, and local law
    enforcement and emergency service capabilities including bomb
    squad, dive teams, explosives detection canine teams, and SWAT
    teams. State and local planners use NCAD to identify gaps and
    apply ``best practices'' to improve their security posture and
    develop multi-jurisdiction plans to respond to emergencies.

                                 ADAM WALSH ACT

        Senator Shelby. Thank you. The Adam Walsh Act, Mr. Attorney
    General, as you know, was enacted on July 27, 2006. The act
    directs the Attorney General, you, sir, to use the resources of
    Federal law enforcement, including the U.S. Marshals Service,
    to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex
    offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements.
        The act also deems as a fugitive any sex offender who
    violates a sex offender registration requirement.
        The President's budget that I mentioned earlier does not
    appear to sufficiently request Marshals Service funding
    specifically for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act and this
    is troubling to a lot of us.
        Based on the President's budget request, should this
    subcommittee be concerned that the Department is inadequately
    prioritizing the need to identify and apprehend absconders from
    the sex offender registry, given that the risk of recidivism
    among the pedophiles and sex offenders is so high?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I think, given the Department's
    historic commitment, which really antedates the Adam Walsh Act,
    to enforcing crimes of violence against children, as well as
    the presence in each district of coordinating deputy U.S.
    Marshals, should provide some reassurance to the subcommittee.
    I agree that we have to be vigilant about the use of resources
    to make sure that, to the extent the function of the U.S.
    Marshals Service is to apprehend fugitives and that's part of
    the mandate, that they address the fugitives from this
    registration program and fugitives who commit child molestation
    offenses generally. That's a scourge and that's always been a
    priority of the Justice Department historically and will remain
    so.
        Senator Shelby. How committed are you as the Attorney
    General, and you head up the Justice Department, to use Federal
    law enforcement, including the Marshals Service, of course, to
    apprehend sex offenders?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Senator, I visited the National
    Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria and I
    recommend that to anybody who hasn't seen it because it's a
    life-changing experience.
        We have deputy U.S. Marshals there full time who receive
    information and get it out to the law enforcement authorities
    who can use it to apprehend these people. We are and remain
    very committed and we're happy for your support because we
    share that concern.
        Senator Shelby. There are a number of Adam Walsh provisions
    expiring in fiscal year 2009 and they include the following.
    Given the landmark importance of the Adam Walsh Act and its
    many provisions, has the Department at this point contemplated
    a legislative plan regarding these expiring provisions and, if
    not, will you and will you get back with us?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I will get back to you. I am not
    particularly familiar with those. I know that we're trying to
    fund the ongoing ones and to make sure that our deputy U.S.
    Marshals address the problem that you mentioned.
        [The information follows:]

                                 Adam Walsh Act

        Below is a list of the expiring provisions of the Adam Walsh Act.
    At present the Department is still evaluating the necessity (utility?)
    of each and anticipates working with authorizing and appropriations
    committees to ensure that all relevant (necessary?) provisions remain
    in force before they expire.
        Expiring sections of the Adam Walsh Act:
      --126--Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) Program
      --142--Federal assistance with respect to violations of registration
            requirements
      --621--Pilot program for monitoring sexual offenders
      --623--Sex offender apprehension grants; juvenile sex offender
            treatment grants
      --625--Grants to combat sexual abuse of children
      --631--Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program
      --632--Fugitive safe surrender

        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much. It was a whole line
    of questioning that I had hoped we would ask. It's a very
    serious issue.
        Senator Leahy, also the chairman of the Judiciary
    Committee.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. Attorney General, good
    morning.
        Attorney General Mukasey. Good morning.

                                 VIOLENT CRIME

        Senator Leahy. Beginning with your immediate predecessor,
    Attorney General, we have seen the rate of violent crime go up
    during the past 2 years.
        Senator Mikulski has already gone into this to some extent,
    but I, too, am thinking about this because last month Senator
    Specter and I had a field hearing in Rutland, Vermont, about
    small cities and towns and rural crime, and the impact of drugs
    and violence on them. These are cities and towns that can't
    fight such kind of crime. It's totally different than what
    they're used to. We have Federal programs that funded State and
    local enforcement--the COPS Program, Byrne-JAG Program, Crime-
    Free Rural States Program--that brought down crime
    considerably.
        The administration has tried to dismantle these, to
    eliminate them. You announced earlier this year $200 million in
    new Federal assistance for State and local law enforcement.
    That didn't even begin to make up for the billions that are
    being cut.
        I have a difficulty explaining to people in Vermont why we
    can spend over $20 billion on the Iraqi Police Force and then
    we don't even know what happened to their weapons, we don't
    know where much of the money went, but we have to cut money for
    a police force in America to pay for a police force in Iraq.
    And what do I say to them? Are we going to find monies that are
    going to come back to our own police forces, this money that's
    been cut, or do we have to just continually send it to the
    Iraqi Police Force?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I can't address the question of
    whether money in Iraq is being used effectively or not being
    used effectively.
        What I can say is that we----
        Senator Leahy. Trust me, it's not from every hearing we've
    had, but go ahead.
        Attorney General Mukasey. I don't know about that. I've
    visited Iraq, and I saw the rule of law efforts that are being
    made by our people there and by their people there.
        Senator Leahy. We still can't find a whole lot of the
    handguns we sent over there. We have no idea what happened to
    them.
        Attorney General Mukasey. It's a war zone, and I understand
    that things happen in a war zone that don't happen in a peace--
    --
        Senator Leahy. We have found some of them and they've been
    used against us, against our forces. Go ahead.
        Attorney General Mukasey. The--we continue to believe in
    the use of the task force approach toward fighting crime,
    particularly toward fighting methamphetamine, which is an
    increasing scourge, particularly in our rural areas, and we've
    had great success with that.
        We believe that organizing the grant allocation program the
    way that I described initially is the best way to make use of
    scant resources. We're not pretending that less money is more
    money, but we're trying to use it as intelligently as we can.
        Senator Leahy. Well, let us work together and work with
    members of both sides of the aisle here because we've found
    success in the COPS Program and other programs like that,
    because with them crime did come down. They are now being cut
    out and crime's going up. I think there's more than a
    corollary.
        I would also hope that all these inquiries being made, by
    whether this committee or the Judiciary Committee, that are not
    being answered, will be answered. We've had no answers to
    questions we asked after a hearing weeks ago.

                              MONITORSHIP PROGRAMS

        I'll tell you one I'm especially interested in. I asked
    months ago about the lucrative no bid contracts awarded to
    former political appointees at the Justice Department for
    monitoring compliance with settlements and deferred prosecution
    agreements in criminal cases.
        According to press reports, these contracts include one
    funneled by former New Jersey U.S. attorney, Christopher
    Christy, to his former boss, Attorney General Ashcroft's
    consulting firm, worth somewhere between $28 million and $52
    million. The story on the front page of yesterday's New York
    Times suggests that the Department could use these agreements
    in the subprime mortgage investigations. Many are concerned
    that that's nothing more than a get out of jail free card for
    corporations.
        Any chance that I might get an answer to the questions I
    asked 3 months ago about who got these contracts, their
    amounts, and how they were rewarded and implemented?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Well, I'm aware of your
    correspondence and it will be responded to, but I can answer
    some of your questions now in the order in which you asked
    them.
        [The information follows:]

                                No-bid Contracts

        On May 15, 2008, the Department submitted a letter to
    Senator Leahy in response to his letters of January 10 and
    February 26, 2008. The May 15 letter addresses the issues
    raised in this question, including the process by which
    monitors are selected. In particular, as noted in the May 15
    letter, the current policy governing the selection and use of
    corporate monitors is set forth in a memorandum dated March 7,
    2008, from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford,
    entitled ``Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred
    Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements with
    Corporations'' (the ``Monitor Principles''). Section II of that
    memorandum describes key aspects of monitor selection,
    including oversight. Among other things, monitor candidates
    must be considered by a committee, and the Office of the Deputy
    Attorney General must approve the monitor.
        The Monitor Principles are designed to ensure that the
    monitor selection process produces a high-quality and conflict-
    free monitor. Political and personal favoritism have no place
    in this process. Toward that end, the Monitor Principles
    require, among other things, that (a) Government attorneys must
    be mindful of their obligation to comply with existing
    conflict-of-interest guidelines; (b) the Government must create
    a committee in the Department component or office at issue to
    consider monitor candidates; (c) United States Attorneys and
    Assistant Attorneys General may not make, accept, or veto the
    selection of monitor candidates unilaterally, and (d) the
    Office of the Deputy Attorney General must approve the monitor.

        Attorney General Mukasey. The issue of grants to
    monitorship programs was addressed in a March memorandum to all
    United States attorneys setting forth best practices. It
    includes a requirement that the Deputy Attorney General monitor
    who is appointed by a United States attorney. These are--I
    should add that the compensation under a monitorship program
    comes not from public funds but comes from the corporation
    that's being monitored.
        Senator Leahy. I understand that. Mr. Attorney General, I
    think we're going to have to have another hearing on this
    because people are losing their pension funds, they're losing
    their homes and they're losing their investments, and we want
    them to know that somebody's not being given a sweetheart deal.
    That's why I urge you to answer.
        My time is virtually up, but I would like to ask one more
    question and feel free to answer what you want on this.

                              PRE-9/11 PHONE CALL

        You recently gave a speech at the Commonwealth Club, at
    which you made reference to a pre-9/11 phone call from
    Afghanistan to the United States. Here's what you said. This
    was an open meeting. ``That's the call we didn't know about. We
    knew there'd been a call from someplace that was known to be a
    safe house in Afghanistan, and we knew that it came to the
    United States. We didn't know precisely where it went.'' You
    indicated the failure to intercept this was responsible for the
    deaths of more than 3,000 people on September 11. You also
    suggested that we didn't intercept this phone call because the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prevented it.
        I've gone back through the 9/11 Commission report. Nobody
    else seems to have known about this call you made or that----
        Attorney General Mukasey. I didn't make the call.
        Senator Leahy. Hmm?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I didn't make the call. I
    mentioned it.
        Senator Leahy. No, you mentioned the call, but nobody else
    seems to know about this.
        So, can you tell me what the circumstances were on that and
    why somebody would have stopped it because nobody else seems to
    know about this call from Afghanistan? You talked about it.
        We do know about the Department of Justice failing to even
    listen to their own FBI agents who told them about these
    hijackers were learning to fly--Agent Bill Kurtz, among
    others--have said so--and were told we've got this under
    control. We know that the Department of Justice wanted to cut
    the budget on counterterrorism on September 10. We know that a
    lot of those signals were missed, but nobody seems to know
    about this phone call you talked about.
        Attorney General Mukasey. The phone call I referenced in--
    by the way, it was not in the speech. It was a question and
    answer session following the speech, relates to an incoming
    call that is referred to in a letter, dated February 22 of this
    year, from the DNI and me to Chairman Reyes of the House
    Intelligence Committee, with copies to principal members and
    the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
        The underlying reference is contained in a joint
    intelligence report of the House Intelligence Committee and a
    Senate Intelligence Committee. I'm happy to provide you with a
    copy of that reference.
        Senator Leahy. Would you, please?
        [The information follows:]

                  Information Regarding a Terrorist Phone Call

        The Department has previously clarified the details of the
    intelligence collection discussed by the Attorney General and provided
    additional information in a letter dated April 10, 2008 from Principal
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to Chairmen Conyers
    and Scott, a copy of which was sent to Chairman Leahy, among others. A
    copy of that letter and associated attachments is attached for the
    Committee's review:

        Dear Chairmen Conyers, Nadler, and Scott: This responds to your
    letter of April 3, 2008, in which you discuss press reports regarding a
    question and answer session following a speech on public corruption
    where the Attorney General, in response to a question, discussed the
    Administration's effort to work with Congress to modernize the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
        In his remarks, the Attorney General discussed a pre-September 11,
    2001, intelligence collection under Executive Order 12333 of
    communications between a terrorist facility abroad and one of the 9/11
    hijackers. The Attorney General and the Director of National
    Intelligence have discussed this particular intelligence collection
    before, in a joint letter they sent to Chairman Reyes on February 22,
    2008. In that letter, which is enclosed for your convenience, the
    Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
    explained that because of the nature of the collection, the
    Intelligence Community missed the opportunity to identify the domestic
    end of the communication prior to September 11, 2001. This episode is
    also referenced in the report of the Joint Inquiry by the Senate and
    House Intelligence Committees into the 9/11 attacks. Some of the
    confusion regarding the Attorney General's remarks may have arisen from
    the details provided by the Attorney General of the nature and location
    of the terrorist facility. We note that while the Attorney General
    referenced a communication between a 9/11 hijacker and a location in
    Afghanistan, he was, in fact, referring to communication between a 9/11
    hijacker and a terrorist facility located in a different country. Apart
    from your questions concerning the particulars of the response the
    Attorney General provided at the Commonwealth Club, your letter appears
    to question the very premise for the joint congressional and executive
    branch effort over the past year to modernize FISA. We believe there is
    a broad bipartisan agreement among Members of Congress that FISA has
    become outdated in large part because of changes in communications
    technology and the nature of national security threats facing the
    country in the past thirty years. This mutual understanding led to the
    passage of the Protect America Act last year and underlies the
    continued bipartisan effort to place HSA modernization on a long-term
    footing. Your letter, for instance, asks whether a FISA order could
    have been required in 2001, to intercept a communication with a
    terrorist suspect overseas. Prior to the passage of the Protect America
    Act, our intelligence officials were frequently required to seek a
    court order based upon probable cause to target the communications of
    terrorists located overseas; indeed, this requirement, which was
    discussed extensively both in public hearings and in closed session,
    was the primary impetus for the Executive Branch's efforts to modernize
    FISA. As the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence
    explained in their letter of February 22:
        . . . HSA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act
    and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect
    information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas. Most
    importantly, FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence
    surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a
    showing of ``probable cause'' before such surveillance can begin. This
    standard makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United
    States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often
    requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are
    most implicated. But it makes no sense to require a showing of probable
    cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled
    to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution. Put
    simply, imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of
    foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially
    vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection
    and thereby losing some intelligence forever. In addition, the
    requirement to make such a showing requires us to divert our linguists
    and analysts covering al-Qa'ida and other foreign threats from their
    core role--protecting the Nation--to the task of providing detailed
    facts for FISA Court applications related to surveillance of such
    foreign targets. Our intelligence professionals need to be able to
    obtain foreign intelligence from foreign targets with speed and
    agility. If we revert to a legal framework in which the Intelligence
    Community needs to make probable cause showings for foreign terrorists
    and other national security threats located overseas, we are certain to
    experience more intelligence gaps and miss collecting information.
        We are also enclosing public testimony from a senior Justice
    Department official explaining why FISA, prior to the passage of the
    Protect America Act, often required a court order to surveil overseas
    intelligence targets.
        Your letter also inquires why FISA's emergency provisions were not
    an adequate substitute for the authorities the Government has obtained
    under the Protect America Act (Public Law 110-55). This issue has also
    been repeatedly addressed by the Executive Branch, most recently in the
    February 22 letter:
        You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an
    adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have lapsed.
    This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency
    authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National
    Security Agency (NSA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    ``may begin surveillance immediately'' in an emergency situation. FISA
    requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest.
    Before surveillance begins the Attorney General must determine that
    there is probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a
    foreign power or an agent of a foreign power and that FISA's other
    requirements are met. As explained above, the process of compiling the
    facts necessary for such a determination and preparing applications for
    emergency authorizations takes time and results in delays. Again, it
    makes no sense to impose this requirement in the context of foreign
    intelligence surveillance of targets located overseas. Because of the
    hurdles under FISA's emergency authorization provisions and the
    requirement to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours, our resource
    constraints limit our use of emergency authorizations to certain high-
    priority circumstances and cannot simply be employed for every foreign
    intelligence target. The fact is that not every threat meets the
    emergency exception because many do not appear to be emergencies until
    it is too late. Indeed, the job of the Intelligence Community is to
    obtain intelligence information that permits us to act before an
    emergency arises, and our intelligence professionals should be
    authorized to obtain intelligence information in an expeditious and
    efficient manner. Given the catastrophic nature of the threats we face
    from foreign terrorists abroad, the Government should not be forced to
    wait for an emergency before it can take steps to gather information
    needed to prevent these terrorists from creating such an emergency. It
    is quite easy to say, after the fact, that the Government could have or
    should have used FISA to conduct surveillance of a particular overseas
    intelligence target. If the Government had the requisite probable cause
    before the fact and could have met the remaining legal requirements of
    FISA (and known that this particular target among numerous others would
    turn out to be so important), that might have been possible. But doing
    so comes at the price of diverting analysts from their primary purpose
    of tracking terrorist and other foreign threats to drafting probable
    cause determinations every time they become aware of a new target or
    that target acquires a new method of communication. Considering the
    sheer volume of foreign intelligence targets abroad and the speed and
    agility with which the Intelligence Community must react, this
    process--as we have learned from experience--is simply not sustainable.
    This, of course, begs the policy question currently before the
    Congress: namely, why would we willingly impose these requirements,
    which impede and at times can prevent effective intelligence
    collection, on the government when it targets foreigners overseas? As
    discussed in the letter to Chairman Reyes quoted above, although the
    probable cause findings required by FISA make a great deal of sense
    when we target people in the United States, they do not with respect to
    foreigners in foreign lands. We hope that this letter and the
    enclosures are responsive to your recent letter and help you understand
    the critical need for FISA modernization. The passage of legislation to
    modernize FISA--like the bipartisan bill passed overwhelmingly by the
    Senate--will help ensure that the Intelligence Community has the tools
    it needs to protect the Nation.
                Sincerely,
                                          Brian A. Benczkowski,
                           Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

        Attorney General Mukasey. One thing--the one thing I got
    wrong was the geography. It did not come from Afghanistan. I
    got the country wrong. But other than that, it was spot on, and
    I will be happy to provide you with the page.
        The point to be made there was not that we could not have
    monitored their visa but rather that no visa application should
    have been necessary to monitor a foreign target in a foreign
    country. I was speaking generally to the desirability of
    getting a bill passed. As you know, we've had a lot of trouble
    with that.
        But I'd be happy to get you the reference. You're right.
    It's not in the 9/11----
        Senator Leahy. We don't need visas to monitor foreign
    source.
        Attorney General Mukasey. We shouldn't need it.
        Senator Leahy. We didn't need it then and we don't today.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much. Senator Feinstein.

                    CUTS TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Senator Feinstein. Mr. Attorney General, I just want you to
    know I totally agree with what Senator Mikulski said. In 13
    years on this committee, 15 years in the Senate, have never had
    more letters from local law enforcement in the State of
    California of deep concern and here is why.
        Your budget cuts local and State law enforcement by 65
    percent and since 2002, the administration has slashed the
    grant programs for State and local law enforcement by 85
    percent or $3.2 billion.
        This is enormous. I am having chiefs of police throughout
    the State of California tell me they're unable to fill the
    FBI's investigative gap. It's a very serious situation.
        In California, 22 drug task forces are going to end if this
    budget is pursued, and I think not to fund, to slash, to cut
    out both COPS and Byrne-JAG is an impossible situation for
    local law enforcement, and this cannot be left to stand.
        So, clearly, we've got our job to do in this area, but I
    want to ask you a question about John Mew's OLC memos.

                         OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL'S MEMO

        On April 1, 2008, the DOJ released a March 2003 Office of
    Legal Counsel (OLC) memo written by John Mew. That memo
    asserted that President Bush had unlimited power to order
    brutal interrogations to exact information from detainees. The
    memo references, on page 8, footnote 10, another OLC memo
    written by John Mew in October 2001. In this memo, the OLC
    concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to
    domestic military operations. To date, your Department has
    refused to declassify and release this memo.
        Is the October 2001 OLC opinion still considered binding by
    the Department of Justice?
        Attorney General Mukasey. That opinion was withdrawn 9
    months after it was issued. It is not.
        Senator Feinstein. So it is not?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Correct.
        Senator Feinstein. It is not operative?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Correct.
        Senator Feinstein. Since when has it not been operative?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Since December 2000--you say this
    is the March 2003 memo?
        Senator Feinstein. This is a March 2003 memo.
        Attorney General Mukasey. Has not been----
        Senator Feinstein. It's the--it's basically the October
    2001 memo.
        Attorney General Mukasey. I can't speak to the October 2001
    memo, but the March 2003 memo was withdrawn 9 months after it
    was issued.
        We are aware of Congress' ongoing interest in this matter
    and oversight interest in this matter and proper interest in
    this matter and we're looking for ways to meet Congress'
    legitimate interest and our own regard for both the equities of
    other agencies that are involved with these memos as well as
    preserving a deliberative process within the Department that
    doesn't result in every piece of advice becoming the subject of
    public debate.
        We're trying to work with Congress to arrive at ways to
    meet your legitimate oversight which we recognize with the
    release of the 2003 memo.
        Senator Feinstein. If you'll excuse me, this isn't a
    question of oversight. I'm just asking you, is this memo in
    force, that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the domestic
    military?
        Attorney General Mukasey. The principle that the Fourth
    Amendment doesn't apply in war time is not in force.
        Senator Feinstein. It--no. The principle that I asked you
    about, does it apply to domestic military operations? Is the
    Fourth Amendment today applicable to domestic military
    operations?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I don't know of any domestic
    military operations being carried out today.
        Senator Feinstein. I'm asking you a question. That's not
    the answer. The question is, does it apply?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I'm unaware of any domestic
    military operations being carried out today. In order for me
    to----
        Senator Feinstein. You're not answering my question.
        Attorney General Mukasey. The Fourth Amendment----
        Senator Feinstein. Is this memo binding today?
        Attorney General Mukasey. The Fourth Amendment applies
    across the board, regardless of whether we're in war time or
    war peace time. It applies across the board.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you,
    Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. That's a pretty important answer.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, it is, bearing in mind what the
    history of this is.
        Attorney General Mukasey. With due respect, I don't think
    it's--there's anything new about the answer because the
    discussion of which that was a part goes to the suggested
    inapplicability of the Fourth Amendment as an alternative basis
    for a finding that searches discussed there would be
    reasonable.
        But in any event,----
        Senator Feinstein. But Mr. Mew's contention was that the
    Fourth Amendment did not apply and that the president was free
    to order domestic military operations.
        Attorney General Mukasey. Without regard to the Fourth
    Amendment?
        Senator Feinstein. That's correct.
        Attorney General Mukasey. That's not my under----
        Senator Feinstein. And you're saying that is not operative?
        Attorney General Mukasey. That is not----
        Senator Feinstein. That is not binding?
        Attorney General Mukasey. To my understanding, that is not
    applicable.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. That's what I
    wanted to know.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, that's something. We're glad to
    hear you say that. That's something somebody should have told
    Mr. Rumsfeld.
        Attorney General Mukasey. Respectfully, I don't think it's
    news.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Senator Feinstein and I are also on
    the Intelligence Committee and Senator Shelby also once chaired
    it as well as membership and I'm on it now, and there's a lot
    of issues related to that which we believe now have come to an
    end, but we're deeply troubled by.
        Senator Feinstein. Madam Chairman, if this is true, I have
    a hard time understanding why the Department of Justice will
    not declassify that memo.
        Senator Mikulski. Did we ask for it?
        Senator Feinstein. We have asked for it. Chairman Leahy has
    asked for it on several occasions and we can't seem to spring
    it loose.
        Attorney General Mukasey. And that was one of the memos
    that was the subject of my statement that we are trying to
    figure out ways of making sure that portions of the memos are
    provided in a way that allows the oversight needs and equities
    of Congress to be served and yet recognizes the equities of
    other agencies that may be involved here, wholly apart from the
    Department, as well as our interests in preserving the
    deliberative processes, such that people can give us the
    benefit of their thinking without having their thinking then
    become the subject of the congressional hearings simply because
    they offered an idea.
        Senator Feinstein. I think we appreciate that. If I may
    just, Madam Chairman, this memo becomes a linchpin. It's a very
    important memo and in Intelligence, we've been unable to obtain
    it. In Judiciary, we've been unable to obtain it.
        I appreciate that you're trying to do it and I hope the
    decision will be forthcoming shortly.
        Attorney General Mukasey. And by trying to do it, I mean
    actively trying to do it. I don't mean it's down in some pile
    of papers. It's at the top. It's a priority of mine.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, may I ask this? When might we
    receive it?
        Attorney General Mukasey. When people asked me when I was a
    judge when a case is going to be decided, my usual response was
    if I knew that precisely, I would already have decided it. I'm
    going to try to do it as quickly as I can and I recognize that
    there's a degree of urgency about this. I have a great deal of
    urgency about it. I am not--my interests are not served by
    having this drag on.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
    appreciate it.
        Senator Mikulski. I have a few questions. Mr. Attorney
    General, I have a few more, and I don't know if my colleagues
    do before the vote begins.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDING

        Let me tell you the intent of the subcommittee working this
    all on a bipartisan basis. We're going to need your help with
    the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). First of all, when
    we pass our bill, we want to be sure that there's adequate
    funds to operate the Department of Justice with the highest
    level of personnel, not only in terms of volume but in terms of
    quality, and also to acknowledge what we call the worker bees
    at the Justice Department, those faithful people, those
    professional civil servants that every day are implementing the
    antitrust laws, the civil rights laws, issuing grants, et
    cetera.
        Second, we want Federal law enforcement to be adequately
    funded. That's the FBI, DEA, the Marshals Service, and the ATF.
    Senator Shelby has raised issues about the Marshals Service. We
    know the FBI does very well. We're concerned about the adequacy
    of DEA and the ATF.
        Then there's also the other pillar in local, which is our
    relationship with State and local law enforcement, and their
    involvement with the community.
        Now, that means that we really want to restore the funding
    to the Byrne grants and the COPS Programs. We really do want to
    do that, and it has wide bipartisan support. I've received
    numerous letters from senators asking us to do that.
        Where senators do ask for earmarks, it's usually around
    fighting gangs, fighting meth, and more technology to make them
    more effective. That's what the earmark is and usually they go
    to earmarks because the grants didn't work.
        Then there are those other issues related to either
    prevention or response. That's the juvenile justice block
    grants and then it is the violence against women which is not
    only to respond to sexual assault and domestic violence. Those
    two things are in and of themselves crucial, but it's also the
    prevention program, the kinds of things that must go on at so
    many levels, particularly against girls, which goes on in
    schools, which young boys often in communities where there's no
    father, no constructive male role model, need to occur, and
    it's unique.
        I remember when the wall came down and new emerging
    democracies came, they wanted to see how a national justice
    department worked with the community because they were used to
    KBG-type stuff. This was fantastic.
        So, this brings us to what we need to do. I met with a
    group called Surviving Parents. These are parents of children
    who endured the most heinous of crimes. These were children
    that were kidnapped, bullishly abused and in some instances
    murdered.
        Now let me tell you what they asked for. They asked for,
    first of all, U.S. Marshals to track down predators. Senator
    Shelby has just been a stalwart supporter in us working
    together on that. The other thing that they asked for was this.
    This was the lapse in technology when DOJ transfers sexual
    predator technology to a new system.

                           SEXUAL PREDATOR TECHNOLOGY

        Let me go to my question because, in addition to more
    marshals to go after the predators, technology is our friend
    and we understand there's been a very creative and effective
    program in Wyoming, actually very cost effective, that has been
    used to identify over 500,000 unique computers that are
    involved in the trafficking of repugnant movies and images of
    children, and I don't even want to identify the crimes against
    the children. They're just too despicable for civilized
    conversation.
        Essentially what we're worried about is DOJ's going to get
    a new technology system. Wyoming has been working well and we
    want to be sure that no child or no microchip falls between the
    cracks.
        So, my question to you, because Wyoming has such a great
    program and has been working so well and was developed in such
    a cost-effective way, can you promise me that the Wyoming-based
    system will be fully supported and funded until such time as an
    equal or better system is in place, so that no matter what,
    we've got this technology working with local law enforcement to
    protect against the trafficking against images which in and of
    themselves, the images, the photographs taken all indicate the
    most vile, the most vile of child abuse?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I want to respond both to your
    question and to one point in your preliminary comments.
        As far as the Wyoming project, what we are trying to do is
    transfer that highly innovative technology which is terrific to
    what's called the RISS System, which is a national system that
    allows intercommunication between and among various law
    enforcement agencies. So what we are trying to do is to get
    that very good innovative technology that was developed in the
    Wyoming project transferred to a national system and we hope to
    try to do that.
        Senator Mikulski. But in the meantime, are we going to keep
    Wyoming, the Wyoming model going, both operational and funded?
        Attorney General Mukasey. We are going to try to do that
    and try to----
        Senator Mikulski. Try, try, try, try. Pardon me. We
    appreciate the effort, but can we have your word that this, the
    Wyoming model, will stay operational until such time as the new
    model moves online?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I have no reason to believe that
    it won't and you have my word that it has my priority. Those
    you have.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I accept your word. We want to
    continue to work with your staff. The third--yes, sir? Did you
    want to comment?

                          JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES

        Attorney General Mukasey. One comment about the general
    quality of people of the Justice Department. I can't lose an
    opportunity to point out that the quality of the people at the
    Justice Department is, person for person, the highest of any
    group of lawyers that I've ever worked with. That's true of the
    career people. That's true of political appointees as well and
    that's what keeps us and me going.
        Senator Mikulski. What keeps you going?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Their ability and their
    commitment.
        Senator Mikulski. Right. Well, we don't dispute that. We
    want them to have the resources that they need. What we're
    concerned about is that the bean counters at OMB to fund FBI,
    which FBI should be funded, they've got really swell programs
    and eliminated them, and we're running a zero sum gain all to
    play let's pretend that we're going to balance the budget.
    That's what we're concerned about.
        We believe in the Justice Department in the sense that we
    believe in those folks, just like we believe in these programs.
    These aren't programs. We're not for the program. We're for the
    outcome of the program and it's how to do it. We were very,
    very, very disturbed last year when we had done an absolutely
    bipartisan bill to run into the President's veto threat. So, we
    had to meet a veto gun. We had to cut $3 billion out in this
    subcommittee. That's where we shave funds from things like weed
    and seed and juvenile justice block grants. We're for your
    Department. We wish OMB was. We really do and that's not laying
    it at your doorstop. You've come in. You're righting the ship.
    You're trying to do a good job. We have a great deal of respect
    for you, Mr. Attorney General, but OMB has to believe in this
    Department as much and we're very frustrated about it and
    that's what we're trying to get to.
        Senator Shelby, did you want to say something?
        Senator Shelby. I just have another question for the
    Attorney General.

                                     RADIOS

        In March 2007, the inspector general reported that of the
    30,000 Department of Justice radios, 79 percent are not airwave
    compliant, 95 percent lack federally mandated security, and 73
    percent are obsolete. That's troubling.
        The report found that this failure to upgrade the
    Department of Justice's components and antiquated
    communications represent an unnecessary risk to the safety of
    agents, among other things.
        I've heard cost estimates to seriously address this issue
    are in the $20 billion range, which seems high but it's a lot
    of money.
        Do you have any idea or do you have any numbers on what it
    would cost to upgrade the Department and make it compliant?
        Attorney General Mukasey. What we're asking for in the
    budget is $70 some odd million to do the, frankly, spit and
    bailing wire repair on the current system.
        Senator Shelby. Just keep it going?
        Attorney General Mukasey. Keep it going. But we've also
    asked for roughly $45 million for new interoperable radios that
    allow us to communicate in an encrypted way so that the bad
    guys aren't listening in on police band radios, so that we can
    do it in an effective way.
        We're on to the problem, and we've--that's the funding that
    we've asked for to help us to at least begin doing that.
        Senator Shelby. Are current communications, Mr. Attorney
    General, are the systems in compliance with the presidential
    narrow band mandate and the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology security guidelines?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I can't speak to that. I'll get
    back to you on that.
        [The information follows:]

                  Compliance of Current Communication Systems

        No. The DOJ Inspector General's report on IWN from March of
    2007 estimated that 21 percent of the Department's radios are
    compliant with presidential narrowband mandates and 5 percent
    are capable of meeting NIST security guidelines. Since March of
    2007, the limited funds have been prudently used to improve
    narrowband compliance to 30 percent and NIST security
    compliance to 15 percent.

        Senator Shelby. And is the IWN, I-W-N, Seattle pilot
    project a feasible model for the future?
        Attorney General Mukasey. We believe it is a feasible model
    and that's the one that we're asking to have funded.
        Senator Shelby. Will you get us some information again on
    that?
        Attorney General Mukasey. I will get you as much
    information as I can. That's the one we've been working on.
    That's the one we want.
        [The information follows:]

             Information Regarding the Integrated Wireless Network

        The Seattle Blaine pilot is a feasible model for major
    metropolitan areas with high federal agent user densities.
    Areas of high user densities typically coincide with scarcity
    of spectrum resources. While the relative spectral efficiency
    of trunking radio technologies can be debated in remote or low-
    density rural areas, high user-density areas always benefit
    from the implementation of trunking technologies.
        A few design criteria from the Seattle Blaine pilot have
    been re-evaluated and probably would not be implemented
    nationwide. The criteria include radio tower site improvements
    and backhaul redundancy. While overall system reliability in a
    trunked system is improved, nationwide implementation may be
    too costly. Selective application of redundancy at the most
    vulnerable system nodes, and site improvements commensurate
    with the equipment being installed would be the two major
    deviations from the Seattle Blaine model.
        The differences in ease-of-use between conventional and
    trunking radio are substantial. The WMO continually receives
    positive feedback from users on the Seattle Blaine IWN system
    regarding usability and roaming capabilities. The use of
    trunking technologies is not an explicit stated requirement for
    IWN, however, we feel the minimal incremental cost (estimated
    to be 30 percent) is well worth the significant improvement in
    radio usability and roaming capabilities for many areas,
    especially in urban settings.

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, I know you'd be
    concerned, but in the event of another attack, absent
    communications interoperability, which is so important, how
    will the Federal law enforcement officers communicate with each
    other? There's got to be--that's got to be a high priority for
    you.
        Attorney General Mukasey. Only with great difficulty.
        Senator Shelby. So this--to make the interoperability and
    modernize the whole communications system is a high priority
    with the Department?
        Attorney General Mukasey. It is a very high priority.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. As always, you're very insightful,
    Senator Shelby. I mean, it's 7 years after 9/11. We should at
    least be able to talk to each other.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. Just like the watch list. Well, if there
    are no further questions this morning, Senators may submit
    additional questions for the subcommittee's official record. We
    request the Department's response within 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 Patrick J. Leahy

                               CORRUPTION IN IRAQ

        Question. You recently traveled to Iraq in February to view first
    hand the Justice Department's efforts at establishing the rule of law
    in that country. According to press accounts, you said, and I quote:
    ``I'm encouraged by the work that's being accomplished here . . . My
    assessment is that the Iraqis are firmly committed to the notion of the
    rule of law.''
        But I recently chaired an Appropriations Committee Hearing on
    fraud, waste, and abuse in Iraq, and the testimony at that hearing made
    it absolutely clear that corruption in Iraq is rampant, and corruption
    remains among the most serious obstacles to progress in that country.
    At the moment, there are more than three thousand pending corruption
    investigations in Iraq, involving more than $18 billion lost to fraud,
    yet the Iraqi government has passed laws and taken other legal actions
    to immunize its public officials from prosecution and protect those
    engaged in corruption.
        The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Jones
    Commission, and the Baker-Hamilton Commission have all been critical of
    the Administration's lack of effort to improving the Iraqi justice and
    police system, yet you say you are ``encouraged'' by what is being
    accomplished in Iraq.
        Do you believe that corruption persists as a very serious problem
    in Iraq and undermines the rule of law there?
        Answer. We do believe that corruption persists as a serious problem
    in Iraq and that corruption of any kind undermines the Rule of Law.
        The Prime Minister and other senior Iraqi officials have publicly
    announced their determination to tackle this problem. Corruption is a
    hidden crime in which individuals in positions of power or influence
    are able to extract for themselves benefits that should be reserved for
    the public. It is no secret that during the Saddam regime, corruption
    was a way of life for Saddam himself, his family, and favored officials
    under him. These practices are inconsistent with a democracy and with
    the Rule of Law because they deny the law the opportunity to govern all
    actions of the state. Instead, they relinquish that power to those
    willing to pay. This impropriety is obviously true when a corrupt
    official's action violates the law, but it is equally true when the
    corrupt official takes an action that would otherwise have been
    permitted by the law.
        For example, current Iraqi law requires amnesty for many Iraqi
    prisoners who have been convicted of or charged with certain crimes. We
    have heard widespread allegations that at some local police stations,
    processing the necessary paperwork would only happen if the detainee's
    family produced a substantial bribe. The corrupt act, of course, is not
    releasing the prisoner, which the law permits and requires; it is
    delaying that action and making it contingent on private payment, when
    the law guarantees it as of right. By contrast, the Iraqi government
    has recently made some high-level arrests in which the evidence
    suggests that officials released individuals under the guise of the
    amnesty statute when, in fact, their crimes were so serious that the
    law did not authorize their release.
        The Rule of Law (not to mention the security of the Iraqi people
    and our troops) is undermined when criminal justice matters proceed in
    any way other than according to the law itself. The same is true for
    run-of-the-mill corruption matters, such as no-show jobs at ministries
    or the diversion of government resources to friends or family of
    officials. In these cases, as well, self-interest rather than the law
    is what governs the actions of the state. When the people perceive that
    actions of any sort are taken for these reasons, they justifiably doubt
    the integrity of the government, and their own commitment to obeying
    the law inevitably declines.
        Question. Exactly what do you find to be encouraging about the
    current efforts to combat corruption in Iraq?
        Answer. As made clear above, we certainly agree that corruption is
    a very serious problem and that Iraq has a long road ahead of it before
    it can tackle that problem. Nevertheless, we believe that it is slowly
    getting better, rather than worsening.
        We are guardedly optimistic because the Government of Iraq, often
    with the assistance and encouragement of the United States, has taken
    substantial steps to transition to a regime in which corruption is
    identified and targeted. It bears repeating that under the previous
    regime, whose final breaths ended barely five years ago, corruption was
    a staple. We are all anxious that Iraq shed any remnants of that prior
    regime, including corruption, but as with every other problem, the
    Iraqi people must work their way through this one.
        They appear to be engaged in this process. A few of the reasons we
    are encouraged include:
      --The Commission on Integrity, Iraq's principal anti-corruption
            investigative agency, has nearly 300 investigators, all of whom
            have been trained by Department of Justice contract trainers
            and funded by the Department of State. The Commission has
            launched more than five thousand corruption investigations. The
            Commission has plans to expand the number of investigators by
            more than a third.
      --A number of recent arrests of government officials demonstrate that
            investigators and judges are willing to risk even their
            personal safety by finding and prosecuting corruption.
      --The judiciary is plainly stepping up to the plate. The well-known
            case against the former Deputy Minister of Health generated an
            acquittal in early March. The fact that the case was heard at
            all was an important victory for the independence of the
            judiciary and the message that corruption and illegal
            government action would be pursued. But even more significant
            is that the Chief Prosecutor has appealed the dismissal of the
            charges to the Court of Cassation.
      --Police salaries have been increased, which will in turn increase
            professionalism and decrease perceived needs to accept illegal
            gratuities. The Directorate of Internal Affairs in the Ministry
            of Interior (MOI), which supervises the police, opened 6,652
            cases in 2007 against MOI employees, and 1,112 of them were
            fired. Others were otherwise disciplined.
      --In January, Prime Minister Maliki issued an eighteen-point anti-
            corruption program and has given international attention to
            anti-corruption efforts--for example, he highlighted them in
            his speech at the International Compact with Iraq meeting in
            Stockholm in May.
      --New draft laws are pending in the Council of Representatives to
            better govern the chief anti-corruption entities in the Iraqi
            government (the Commission on Integrity, the Board of Supreme
            Audit, and the Directors General from the various ministries).
      --At least some parts of the government appear to be taking proactive
            measures to reduce opportunities for corruption. Chief Justice
            Medhat al-Mahmoud, whom the statute made responsible for
            administering the nationwide system for adjudicating claims for
            amnesty, recognized the likelihood that detainees and their
            families would face demands for bribes throughout the process.
            He therefore crafted extraordinarily simple claims forms of
            only a single sheet of paper and made them widely available,
            allowing not only detainees but their families to obtain forms
            at courthouses throughout Iraq. He allowed the forms to be
            distributed where they would most likely reach those in need,
            including within prisons. From the very beginning, his view was
            that if the forms were readily available, they would have no
            value on the corruption mill. Since the completed forms were
            then to be given directly to the courts, another opportunity
            for corruption was squeezed out. Although this is only one
            small example, it is an encouraging sign that the government
            recognizes the problem and is trying to address it.
      --In March the Government of Iraq signed and ratified the U.N.'s
            Convention Against Corruption which obligates the country to
            take action against corruption.
        Question. Is it encouraging that the Maliki government passes laws
    to protect public officials from investigation?
        Answer. We are not aware of any law that the Maliki government has
    passed with the aim of protecting public officials from investigation.
    There is a provision of the Criminal Procedure Code which allows
    Ministers to stop investigations of all types including corruption. Our
    Embassy continues to urge the Government to rescind this provision but
    it remains on the books. The Department of Justice defers to the
    diplomatic efforts of our Embassy in this regard.
        Question. Specifically, what is the Justice Department doing to
    combat the corruption problem in Iraq?
        Answer. The Department of Justice's efforts in Iraq are aimed at
    strengthening Iraq's Rule of Law institutions. The Department of State
    has created a separate entity at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the Anti-
    Corruption Coordination Office (ACCO), which is charged with
    coordinating anti-corruption activities and policies. Anti-corruption
    principles are a key ingredient of any society living under the Rule of
    Law, so all Department of Justice employees in Iraq are fully aware
    that the Department of Justice mission includes assisting ACCO.
        There are some specific ways in which the Department of Justice is
    attempting to do that. The International Criminal Investigative
    Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) provides capacity building,
    training, and technical assistance, along with equipment and
    specialized training for Iraq's Commission on Integrity. The Federal
    Bureau of Investigation investigates alleged corruption involving the
    U.S. government (which affects both the Iraqi and the American people)
    and, through its work with the Major Crimes Task Force, helps Iraqi law
    enforcement investigate illegal behavior of Iraqi public officials.
    Department of Justice personnel across Iraq work closely to help build
    the capacity and enhance the integrity of the courts.

                                  BULLET LEAD

        Question. More than four months ago, in a letter I sent to you that
    remains unanswered, I expressed my concerns that flawed bullet lead
    analysis done by the FBI for many years may have led to wrongful
    convictions. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2005
    discrediting bullet lead analysis, and the FBI stopped conducting
    bullet lead testing that same year. Over the last two years, however,
    the Justice Department has not taken steps to find or correct the cases
    where it was misused. As a former judge, I am sure you share my fear
    that this faulty forensic evidence may have been introduced in the
    estimated 2,500 cases where it was used. In my letter in November, I
    asked you to provide the Judiciary Committee with the list of cases
    where FBI bullet lead analysis was used, and to advise the Committee
    what steps you've taken to correct any unjust convictions resulting
    from bullet lead analysis.
        Please state whether you have taken any action in response to my
    letter and explain your response.
        Answer. As is discussed in more detail in the response to your
    November 2007 letter to the Attorney General, in 2005 the FBI sent to
    the National District Attorney's Association, the National Association
    of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Innocence Project, and approximately
    300 agencies letters outlining the FBI's decision to discontinue these
    examinations. The letters were sent so the recipients could take
    whatever steps they deemed appropriate to ensure no one was convicted
    based on inappropriate bullet lead testimony.
        The FBI has committed to review all testimony provided by FBI
    Laboratory personnel in bullet lead cases that resulted in convictions
    in order to determine whether they testified within the scope of the
    science. Because the FBI performed bullet lead examinations for
    approximately 40 years, we cannot readily produce a list of all cases
    in which bullet lead analysis was performed. Because FBI laboratory
    personnel who conducted bullet lead examinations also conducted other
    types of forensic tests, the FBI has to examine all files worked by the
    universe of examiners who conducted bullet lead analysis. That process
    is ongoing. As of mid-May 2008, the FBI had identified approximately
    1,270 cases (covering the period of 1975 to 2004) in which bullet lead
    analyses resulted in ``positive'' results that may possibly have formed
    the basis of trial testimony.
        As the FBI Director has testified, the FBI will be working with the
    Innocence Project (IP) to ensure all appropriate parties are notified.
    Specifically, as the FBI identifies cases in which bullet lead analysis
    was performed, we will provide to the IP the FBI file number, the names
    of the contributor and prosecutor and their contact information,
    contributor and prosecutor file numbers, the FBI Laboratory examiner's
    name, the defendant's name, and the FBI's assessment of the
    appropriateness of the testimony provided. The FBI will also offer the
    IP copies of the transcripts received from prosecutors. By providing a
    dual notification track (that is, notification to both the prosecutor
    and the IP), the FBI is confident that appropriate notification will be
    made to any defendant who was or may have been adversely affected by
    inappropriate FBI bullet lead testimony.
        Question. When can I expect a response to my letter?
        Answer. DOJ is completing its response to the letter and will be
    transmitted to your office presently.
        Question. According to press accounts, the FBI agreed in November
    to provide a list of all cases where bullet lead analysis was used to
    the Innocence Project in order to begin working to identify cases where
    there may be problems.
        Please state whether you support this collaborative effort and
    explain your response.
        Answer. In an FBI press release on November 17, 2007, the FBI
    announced that it has undertaken an additional round of outreach,
    analysis, and review efforts concerning bullet lead analysis. This has
    included joint work with the Innocence Project, which has done legal
    research to identify criminal cases in which bullet lead analysis has
    been introduced at trial.
        The Department of Justice, including the FBI, takes this issue very
    seriously, and we are developing procedures to ensure that appropriate
    disclosures are made to the relevant parties. Thereafter, the parties
    involved can make an assessment of the effect of any potentially
    erroneous testimony.
        Question. Has anyone in the Justice Department taken any steps to
    support or oppose this agreement between the FBI and the Innocence
    Project?
        Answer. Please see the response to subpart a, above.

                              UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

        Question. As of May last year, the Justice Department reported to
    the Judiciary Committee that there was only one FBI agent assigned to
    Iraq and one assigned to Kuwait to investigate significant contracting
    fraud. Since May 2007, has the Justice Department assigned more full-
    time FBI agents or other federal investigators to work on contracting
    fraud cases in Iraq and Afghanistan? If not, why not?
        Answer. The FBI currently has Special Agents (SAs) deployed in
    Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait to provide full-time support to the
    International Contract Corruption Initiative, which addresses major
    fraud and corruption in the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. These deployments are conducted in 120-day rotation cycles
    and SAs work jointly with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service,
    Army Criminal Investigation Command Major Procurement Fraud Unit,
    Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, and U.S. Agency for
    International Development, who also have agents deployed to address
    this crime problem. The FBI's overseas assignments in direct support of
    this multi-agency initiative are as follows: one SA in Kuwait; one
    Assistant Legal Attache and two SAs in Iraq; and two SAs in
    Afghanistan.
        Question. In November, I sent you a letter expressing my concerns
    that flawed bullet lead analysis done by the FBI for many years may
    have led to wrongful convictions. As you know, the National Academy of
    Sciences issued a report in 2005 discrediting bullet lead analysis, and
    the FBI stopped conducting bullet lead testing that same year. But over
    the last two years, the Justice Department has not taken steps to find
    or correct the cases where it was misused. As a former judge, I am sure
    you share my fear that this faulty forensic evidence may have been
    introduced in the estimated 2,500 cases where it was used. Two months
    ago, I asked you to provide the Judiciary Committee with the list of
    cases where FBI bullet lead analysis was used, and to advise the
    Committee what steps you've taken to correct any unjust convictions
    resulting from bullet lead analysis. When can I expect a response to my
    letter? Have you taken any action in response to my letter?
        Answer. Please see the response to Question 1, above.
        Question. According to press accounts, the FBI agreed in November
    to provide a list of where all bullet lead analysis was used to the
    Innocence Project in order to begin working to identify cases where
    there may be problems. Do you support this collaborative effort? Has
    anyone in the Justice Department taken any steps to support or oppose
    this agreement between the FBI and the Innocence Project?
        Answer. Please see the response to Question 2, above.

                          E-MAIL AND E-MAIL RETENTION

        Question. Have you begun any review of the White House's policies
    on e-mail and e-mail retention?
        Answer. No.
        Question. Have you investigated whether in the implementation of
    those policies there has been noncompliance with laws requiring
    retention of White House records that belong to the American people?
        Answer. We are not aware of any facts that would warrant a criminal
    investigation. The Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute.
        Question. Are you going to inquire as to whether there has been an
    intentional effort to avoid those laws and Congressional oversight?
        Answer. We are aware of no facts that would suggest that such an
    inquiry would be warranted.
        Question. At last week's oversight hearing, you would not agree
    with me that waterboarding an American citizen anywhere in the world is
    torture and illegal. Under what circumstances or with what
    justifications would you consider waterboarding an American not torture
    and not illegal?
        Answer. As the Attorney General stated during his appearance before
    the Committee, because waterboarding is not among the practices
    currently authorized for use in the CIA program, we do not believe that
    it would be appropriate to answer categorically questions concerning
    the legality of waterboarding absent a set of circumstances that call
    for those answers.
        Question. While the Nisoor Square killings have drawn the most
    publicity, those shootings were not an isolated event. Blackwater
    forces have a documented history of shootings in Iraq where civilians
    have been seriously injured and killed. There were two other shooting
    incidents in the same month as the Nisoor square killings, where five
    civilians were killed and fifteen more were wounded. Since 2005, there
    have been nearly 200 other shootings by Blackwater guards in Iraq, and
    in more than 160 of those incidents, the Blackwater guards fired first.
    Is the Justice Department's investigation limited to the Blackwater
    killings in September, or will the Justice Department also investigate
    the other shooting incidents by Blackwater and other private security
    contractors in Iraq? If not, why not?
        Answer. As a general matter, the Department does not comment on
    referrals made to it by other Departments, including State and DOD. In
    addition to being law enforcement information that the Department
    generally does not disclose publicly, referral numbers paint an
    incomplete picture and raise law enforcement sensitive questions that
    the Department is unable to answer.
        Question. How many full time prosecutors and agents at the Justice
    Department are assigned to investigate criminal allegations against
    private security contractors overseas? What steps have you taken to
    make sure that shooting incidents by private security contractors in
    Iraq and Afghanistan are aggressively investigated and prosecuted?
        Answer. Most MEJA cases involving private security contractors are
    initially investigated by the Department of Defense or the Department
    of State. Department of Justice agents and prosecutors do not typically
    become involved until those Departments refer a given case to the
    Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. When MEJA cases are
    referred to the Department for prosecution, the Department assigns
    agents and prosecutors as needed from the FBI, the offices of the
    United States Attorneys, and the Criminal Division.
        The Department is committed to investigating and prosecuting
    criminal acts committed by private security contractors overseas. To
    that end, we continue to work with the Departments of Defense and State
    to ensure that there are clear procedures for those Departments to
    identify and, where appropriate, to refer for prosecution allegations
    of criminal misconduct involving private security contractors. We are
    also working with the Congress to explore legislative amendments that
    would increase the USG's ability to hold private security contractors
    accountable under federal law.
        Question. According to press accounts, on January 24, 2008, a
    federal grand jury in Alexandria issued a subpoena to New York Times
    reporter Jim Risen reportedly seeking information about his
    confidential sources for a chapter in his 2006 book, ``State of War''
    focusing on the CIA's alleged efforts to infiltrate and destabilize
    Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Risen's book also expanded on his reporting
    about the Administration's warrantless wiretapping for which he and
    another New York Times reporter won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize. Under the
    Department's guidelines, a subpoena to the media must be approved by
    the Attorney General. Did you approve this subpoena? What process was
    followed by the Department in considering whether to subpoena Mr.
    Risen?
        Answer. Because Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) imposes a
    secrecy requirement on all pending Grand Jury investigations, we cannot
    answer any questions pertaining to a specific Grand Jury subpoena or
    specific Grand Jury proceedings. We can say, however, that the
    Department's internal guidelines concerning media subpoenas, reprinted
    at 28 CFR 50.10, set out the specific factors to be considered before
    issuing a subpoena to a member of the media and require Attorney
    General approval before any such subpoena is issued.
        Question. The Department's time-honored guidelines, set forth in
    the Department's ``red book''--its guidebook on ``Federal Prosecution
    of Election Offenses''--were revised under the outgoing, discredited
    leadership group to turn the traditional practice of not bringing last-
    minute investigations and actions on its head. The policies in the new
    ``green book'' provide great latitude for the Department to influence
    the outcomes of elections. We learned of this shift last year and were
    made aware of its dangers in investigating the actions of interim U.S.
    Attorney Bradley Schlozman, who replaced fired U.S. Attorney Todd
    Graves and brought election-eve indictments in a highly contested
    election in Missouri. What steps are you and the Department taking to
    make sure that there is no repeat of this type of conduct?
        Answer. This question includes several components, which we address
    separately. As an initial matter, earlier this year, the Attorney
    General circulated a memorandum to all Department employees emphasizing
    the Department's existing policies with respect to political
    activities. The memorandum reiterated that ``politics must play no role
    in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any
    investigations or criminal charges.'' The Attorney General has also
    reiterated this message personally on numerous occasions in his
    meetings with Department personnel.
        With respect to the question, there was nothing improper about the
    timing of the registration fraud indictments in Missouri. Evidence
    submitted to the Department reflected that the subjects had submitted
    numerous bogus voter registrations to a get-out-the vote organization.
    No voters needed to be interviewed; the Department's consultation
    procedures for such matters were followed; and the charges did not
    violate the Department's policy against interfering with an ongoing
    election. This policy focuses on the timing of investigations of
    alleged voter fraud--not the timing of filing charges that have already
    been investigated--and discourages overt criminal investigation during
    the period immediately prior to an election or on Election Day in order
    to avoid chilling lawful voting activity or interjecting a criminal
    investigation into an ongoing campaign.
        Simply stated, the Department's 1995 election crime manual was
    revised because it was out of date. The main authors of the 2007 manual
    are two career prosecutors in the Criminal Division's Public Integrity
    Section. These senior prosecutors are the Department's experts on
    election crimes and collectively have over sixty years of experience in
    the investigation and prosecution of election fraud and campaign
    financing crimes. The updated draft went through several revisions by
    its authors. After review and approval by the Section and Criminal
    Division, the manual was forwarded to other Department components prior
    to publication. Its authors received no substantive suggestions from
    anyone outside the Criminal Division.
        The 2007 manual incorporates the landmark changes enacted by
    Congress in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), and
    especially the enhanced criminal penalties for campaign financing
    crimes included in these reforms. It also incorporates the Department's
    renewed commitment to addressing election fraud and campaign financing
    crimes that is exemplified by the Department's Ballot Access and Voting
    Integrity Initiative. The initiative was created in 2002 to increase
    the Department's efforts to protect voting rights and deter and
    prosecute election crimes, and recognizes that it does little good to
    protect a person's right to vote if that person's vote is subsequently
    diluted or eliminated by fraud.
        As in other areas of criminal law enforcement, the effect of
    vigorous and impartial enforcement of the federal statutes
    criminalizing various types of election crimes is likely to extend
    beyond the defendants charged in specific cases and deter others who
    are considering similar conduct. While this deterrence is not capable
    of measurement, it remains an important societal and governmental goal.
    Congress also has recently recognized the importance of deterring
    crimes. See BCRA  314(b)(1) (mandating a new sentencing guideline for
    campaign financing crimes that would reflect ``the need for appropriate
    and aggressive law enforcement action to prevent such violations'').
    The 2007 manual also incorporates the Department's additional
    enforcement experiences prosecuting election crimes over the past
    decade, and recognizes that there are situations where prosecution of
    an individual act of election fraud or campaign fraud may be warranted.
    Rather than providing what is in essence a blanket immunity for an
    individual who commits a federal crime, this approach allows
    prosecutive decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, as is the
    case in other areas of criminal law enforcement.
        Moreover, there has been no substantive change in the Department's
    policy regarding noninterference with elections. For over two decades,
    the Public Integrity Section and its Election Crimes Branch have
    counseled United States Attorneys' Offices against taking overt
    criminal investigative measures involving alleged election fraud, such
    as interviewing voters or issuing grand jury subpoenas for ballot
    documents, until the election in question has been concluded and its
    results certified. This policy reduces the risks of chilling legitimate
    voting, interfering with the administration of elections by the states,
    or transforming a criminal investigation into a campaign issue by
    appearing to legitimize unsubstantiated allegations. Rather than being
    ``watered down'' or weakened, the text was expanded in the updated
    manual to provide additional guidance and assistance as a result of the
    Department's ongoing criminal enforcement efforts in this area.
        Election crimes strike at the heart of our democratic form of
    government and the Department is committed to the vigorous and
    impartial enforcement of the federal criminal statutes enacted by
    Congress to combat these serious crimes.
        Question. One of the most disturbing features of the Justice
    Department in this Administration has been the complicity of the
    Department's supposedly independent and impartial Office of Legal
    Counsel in providing secret legal memoranda defining torture down to
    meaninglessness, excusing warrantless spying on Americans contrary to
    our laws and, more recently, justifying the absolute immunity of White
    House employees from Congressional subpoenas without reference to a
    single legal precedent. Jack Goldsmith, a conservative former head of
    the Office of Legal Counsel who found many of these opinions to be
    ``deeply flawed and sloppily reasoned'' rescinded several of the most
    extreme of them, only to see some reinstated in other forms after his
    departure. In response to questions from Senator Schumer at your
    confirmation hearing, you committed to this Committee that you would
    conduct a review of OLC opinions in several areas, including detention
    policies, interrogation policies, and policies relating to warrantless
    wiretapping. Have you conducted this review and in what areas? If not,
    why not?
        Answer. As the Attorney General committed in his letter to the
    Committee, dated October 30, 2007, he has reviewed the Office of Legal
    Counsel's legal analysis of practices that are currently authorized for
    use in the CIA's interrogation program. The Attorney General has found
    those practices to be lawful and has found the Office's analysis and
    conclusions concerning those practices to be correct and sound. The
    Attorney General has not found it necessary to go further and to review
    Office of Legal Counsel opinions, or portions of those opinions, that
    do not address matters currently before him.
        Have you determined that any OLC opinions are suspect? If so, what
    action have you taken?
        Answer. No, the Attorney General has reviewed the Office of Legal
    Counsel's legal analysis of practices that are currently authorized for
    use in the CIA's interrogation program. The Attorney General has found
    those practices to be lawful and has found the Office's analysis and
    conclusions concerning those practices to be correct and sound.
        Question. Congress cannot legislate in the dark. With this
    Committee, in particular, that means we must know how the Executive
    Branch interprets the law on critical national security issues. Yet
    this Administration has steadfastly refused to provide the Congress
    with key opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel on electronic
    surveillance and their interpretation of the laws on torture. Will you
    commit to providing this Committee, under appropriate security
    protections, the OLC legal opinions that we have been requesting for
    years and that we require in order to fulfill our constitutional
    responsibilities?
        Answer. The Administration has made extraordinary accommodations in
    recent months to accommodate Congress' interest in these matters.
    Highly classified opinions concerning the Terrorist Surveillance
    Program have been made available to, among others, the Intelligence and
    Judiciary Committees of both Houses of Congress. As to the CIA's
    interrogation program, the Intelligence Committees briefed on both the
    classified details of and the legal basis supporting the program, and
    unclassified briefings also have been provided to Congress. Since the
    Attorney General's testimony, the Administration has further
    accommodated congressional interest in this subject by making available
    to the Intelligence Committees the classified OLC opinions on the CIA
    program. In addition, the Administration has made available to the
    Judiciary Committees three of those opinions, with limited redactions
    necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods.
        Question. In 2004, Congress passed and the President signed the
    Justice for All Act. That bipartisan bill included the Innocence
    Protection Act, a piece of legislation I worked on for years providing
    important reforms to help reduce the risk of error in capital cases. A
    key component of that Act was a grant program for post-conviction DNA
    testing. The program is named in honor of Kirk Bloodsworth, the first
    death row inmate exonerated as a result of DNA testing. To ensure that
    other innocent people avoid the ordeal Mr. Bloodsworth went through and
    that the guilty are caught and convicted, it is crucial that states
    receive the funding authorized and appropriated for the Bloodsworth
    program. Instead, the Department of Justice has interpreted the very
    reasonable evidence preservation requirements that Congress included
    for this program so stringently, and contrary to Congress' intent, that
    all applications to the program have been rejected and not a dime has
    been awarded. This Committee held a hearing last month on this issue,
    and the Department's representative assured us that he would work to
    award the grant money that has been sitting unused these past three
    years. Will you make sure that the Department does everything it can
    this year to get the money appropriated to the Bloodsworth program out
    to the states that can use it for good?
        Answer. Yes. In the fiscal year 2007 postconviction DNA
    solicitation, in accordance with section 413 of the Justice for All Act
    and the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 appropriations,
    applicants were required to demonstrate compliance with certain
    stringent eligibility requirements set by section 413. Language in this
    year's (fiscal year 2008) appropriation has the effect of allowing the
    Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to ease the
    section 413 requirements with respect to funds appropriated for fiscal
    year 2006-fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year 2008 solicitation--which
    was posted on January 22, 2008, and updated in response to concerns
    expressed in connection with a Senate hearing--accordingly eases the
    requirements of section 413, in a manner that we believe remains
    consonant with the policy objectives of section 413.
        Question. Congress gave the Department an out in this year's
    appropriations bill that allows the Department to loosen the
    requirements for the Bloodsworth program. Will you nonetheless make
    sure that the Department does not ignore Congress's clear intent that
    states be held to reasonable standards of evidence preservation since
    money for DNA testing does no good if the evidence is not there to
    test?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2008 solicitation eases the requirements in
    a manner that we believe remains consonant with the policy objectives
    of the statute. Under the fiscal year 2008 solicitation to establish
    eligibility, the chief legal officer of the State must certify that the
    State ``[p]reserves biological evidence secured in relation to the
    investigation or prosecution of a State offense of forcible rape,
    murder, or nonnegligent manslaughter under a State statute, local
    ordinances, or State or local rules, regulations, or practices, in a
    manner intended to ensure that reasonable measures are taken by all
    jurisdictions within the State to preserve such evidence.'' We believe
    that this requirement, which includes language derived generally from
    section 413 of the Justice for All Act itself, calls for a meaningful
    certification. We will rely on the chief legal officer of each State to
    accurately assess whether the certification properly can be made based
    on the State's particular circumstances. We note that the certification
    template explicitly states that ``I am aware that a false statement in
    this certification may be subject to criminal prosecution, including
    under 18 U.S.C.  1001.''
        Moreover, the fiscal year 2008 solicitation for these funds puts
    States on notice that funding in future fiscal years may be contingent
    on the more stringent requirements regarding evidence retention
    established by section 413 of the Justice for All Act. In addition,
    through the DNA and Coverdell programs, NIJ provides significant
    assistance to States and units of local government to purchase
    equipment and other resources to provide for retention of biological
    evidence. Finally, NIJ is studying the extent of evidence preservation
    in DNA laboratories generally to identify ways to improve evidence
    storage practices.
        Question. The Judiciary Committee's hearing last month also looked
    into Inspector General Glenn Fine's highly critical review of the
    Department's implementation of the Coverdell grant program for forensic
    improvements. The Justice for All Act required that states receiving
    money under the Coverdell program certify that they have an independent
    entity to investigate allegations of serious negligence or misconduct.
    Inspector General Fine's report found many problems with the
    Department's implementation of this provision. Perhaps most
    astonishing, he found that the Department has taken the legal position
    that, while agencies must certify they have an independent entity where
    they can refer allegations of misconduct or serious negligence by
    forensic labs, the agencies have no obligation to actually refer such
    allegations for investigation. So they need to have a process, but they
    do not need to use it. This is clearly contrary the bi-partisan intent
    of Congress in the Justice for All Act. Why would the Justice
    Department would take a legalistic position that is so clearly contrary
    to the intent of the Justice for All Act?
        Answer. The Department of Justice agrees that allegations of
    serious negligence or misconduct in forensic programs should be
    appropriately investigated. In its recent fiscal year 2008 solicitation
    for the Coverdell program, the National Institute of Justice strongly
    encouraged the reporting of allegations of serious negligence or
    misconduct to the appropriate government entity. The Department is
    currently working collaboratively with the Office of the Inspector
    General to further clarify, in the best way possible, the grantees'
    responsibilities when they receive allegations of serious negligence or
    misconduct.
        Question. Do you agree with me that the Justice Department must
    encourage the reporting of serious allegations of lab misconduct for
    investigation in order to ensure that any federally-funded forensic
    labs have the highest level of integrity?
        Answer. Yes, the Justice Department believes that allegations of
    serious negligence or misconduct should be appropriately investigated.
    Beginning with the upcoming fiscal year 2008 solicitation, Coverdell
    program solicitations will strongly encourage the reporting of this
    misconduct.
        Question. What are you proposing for rural areas and the smaller
    cities where crime has risen the most?
        Answer. DOJ is committed to providing the technical assistance
    necessary to ensure that applicants need not employ professional grant
    writers to successfully compete for funding. But more, objective
    criteria such as crime rates allow communities and grantees to compete
    on equal footing.
        This has been borne out in practice. A total of 18 sheriffs offices
    were funded in the fiscal year 2007 Targeting Violent Crime Initiative
    Program--all that applied were successful. While several large
    sheriffs' offices applied and were funded, many small agencies also
    applied and received funding (some with as few as 20 or 30 sworn
    staff). Awards to larger agencies often included support for smaller
    agencies in the surrounding areas, including sheriffs' offices (showing
    multi-jurisdictional character was an important factor in this
    program).
      --Tulsa, Oklahoma--the Tulsa Police Department will partner with the
            Tulsa County Sheriffs Office, the local community services
            council, the FBI and ATF to address gang- and drug-related gun
            crime in the greater Tulsa area.
      --Wilmington, North Carolina--this town will use TVCI funds to
            address a violent drug gang problem using long and short term
            investigative strategies and relying on a partnership with the
            local FBI task force.
      --Moss Point, Mississippi--this Gulf Coast community (population
            15,512) will use TVCI funds in addition to building on existing
            DEA and FBI task forces to address local violence, which
            appears to be drug- and gang-related.
      --Redding, California--this Shasta area community will address local
            gang problems using TVCI funds in collaboration with federal
            agency support.
      --Lowell, Massachusetts--this suburban community will use TVCI funds
            to support an analytical, intelligence-driven ``Ceasefire''
            approach to address gun, gang, and drug violence in the
            community.
      --Akron, Ohio--this Midwest community will broaden an anti-gang
            initiative with Summit County Sheriff's Office and the Greater
            Akron High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area project. Funds will
            also be used to support prevention and prosecution of crimes in
            that area.
      --Leech Lake Tribe in Minnesota.
        The Bureau of Justice Assistance within OJP also has a program of
    training and technical assistance designed exclusively for small law
    enforcement agencies (those with less than 50 sworn staff). This
    program provides assistance to small departments in developing anti-
    crime strategies, managing departments, and accessing resources such as
    grants. This program is administered by the International Association
    of Chiefs of Police.
        Question. Will you commit to working with me during the regular
    fiscal year 2009 appropriations cycle and on the upcoming emergency
    supplemental appropriations bill to restore the hundreds of millions in
    funding cuts to the COPS Program, the Byrne grant program, and other
    programs that have proven effective in cutting crime?
        Answer. We appreciate the support shown for the Department by the
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science and
    pledge, consistent with the President's budget request, the
    Department's assistance to the subcommittee in getting the information
    it needs to formulate its fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill. If
    Congress were to pass a supplemental appropriations bill in 2008, the
    Department would be glad to consider supporting the request so long as
    it was consistent with Administration priorities.
        Question. Sixteen years after Congress authorized the National
    Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS), there are still major
    loopholes in the system that allow crooked mechanics and sellers to
    ``wash'' data from car titles that would alert prospective buyers if a
    car has been totaled in an accident or stolen. Consumers face dangers
    when they unknowingly buy improperly repaired vehicles with a history
    of serious damage. An article about airbag scams published last month
    in Reader's Digest documents several deaths due to nonfunctioning
    airbags in vehicles whose titles had been ``washed'' and whose repairs
    were fraudulent. Due to gaps in NMVTIS reporting, the owners did not
    know that their cars had been previously totaled, much less improperly
    repaired. They delay in full implementation of NMVTIS is the result of
    the Justice Department's failure to issue long-overdue rules requiring
    insurers and junkyards to provide data about totaled vehicles. Why,
    when consumer safety is at stake, has the Department failed for over a
    decade to issue these rules? When will the rules be issued?
        Answer. The key to an effective vehicle titling system is the
    cooperation and participation of all of the states. Since
    responsibility for the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System
    (NMVTIS) was transferred from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
    the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice has been working
    with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
    to implement NMVTIS. AAMVA is a nonprofit, tax exempt, educational
    association representing U.S. and Canadian officials who are
    responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor vehicle
    laws. AAMVA has been acting in the capacity of NMVTIS operator since
    1992, when DOT was responsible for the system. The focus of the efforts
    of the Department of Justice and AAMVA has been to set up a working
    system and to get all of the states to participate in NMVTIS.
    Unfortunately, many states have been slow to participate because of
    competing demands on their resources.
        Currently, 35 states are actively involved with NMVTIS. Thirteen
    states are participating fully in NMVTIS, 12 states are regularly
    providing data to the system, and an additional 10 states are actively
    taking steps to provide data or to participate fully. The 13 states
    participating fully in NMVTIS are Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa,
    Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota,
    Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. The 12 states providing regular
    data updates to NMVTIS are Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana,
    Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
    Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. The 10 states actively taking steps to
    provide data or participate fully are Arkansas, California, Delaware,
    Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and
    West Virginia. States that participate fully in the system provide data
    regularly and make NMVTIS inquiries before issuing a new title. These
    states also send updates to the system when necessary. States that
    regularly provide data to the system do so through a batch upload
    process but do not check NMVTIS before issuing a new title. Currently,
    more than 60 percent of the U.S. vehicle population is represented in
    the system. The Department of Justice's goal is to have more than 75
    percent of the U.S. vehicle population represented in the system by the
    end of 2008.
        The Department of Justice has recently submitted a proposed rule to
    implement NMVTIS to the Office of Management and Budget. That rule is
    currently under review.

                     TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIER COMPENSATION

        Question. We are engaged in a debate in the Senate about this
    Administration's proposal to grant retroactive immunity to
    telecommunications carriers who participated in secret warrantless
    surveillance efforts for more than 5 years in violation of the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act, presumably some of the same carriers
    that later disconnected wiretaps when the bills were not paid. What
    payments were made to telecom companies to compensate for their
    participation in surveillance efforts including that which came to know
    as the President's program and the Terrorist Surveillance Program?
        Answer. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees have conducted
    extensive oversight of operational aspects of the National Security
    Agency activities described by the President and the 2005 Act now
    commonly known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The Judiciary
    Committees of both Houses have also been provided with documents, held
    hearings, and have been briefed on this Program. The specifics of any
    arrangement between the Government and a telecommunications carrier to
    provide classified assistance with surveillance efforts cannot be
    further discussed in an unclassified setting.
        Question. As of May last year, the Justice Department declined to
    identify for the Judiciary Committee the number of civil false claims
    cases that have been referred to or remain pending at the Justice
    Department, and only identified one case where the Justice Department
    has joined a qui tam relator in a case involving allegations of
    contracting fraud in Iraq or Afghanistan. Will you provide the
    Committee with an update on the status of these unresolved civil false
    claims cases? Please identify how many false claims cases have been
    referred to the Justice Department for investigation, how many the
    Justice Department has joined, and how many cases the Justice
    Department has declined to join. Also, please identify any new public
    settlements under the False Claims Act related to allegations of
    contracting fraud in Iraq or Afghanistan, and briefly describe the
    facts of these cases.
        Answer. As of June 2, 2008, fifty-three qui tam actions have been
    filed under the False Claims Act against private contractors that
    provided support for U.S. government activities in the Middle East,
    including Iraq and Afghanistan. Of these fifty-three cases, the
    Department has intervened in and is litigating one case, has settled,
    at least in part, three other cases, and has declined to intervene in
    another eighteen cases. The Department continues to investigate the
    remaining matters. The Department is also investigating a number of
    non-qui tam matters involving the Middle East that have been referred
    to the Department by other governmental agencies.
        As noted, the Department has resolved three qui tam actions, at
    least in part, relating to the Middle East, which resulted in four
    separate settlements. Additionally, the Department has settled one non-
    qui tam matter under the False Claims Act involving the Middle East.
    These five settlements are briefly described below:
      --Houston-based EGL, Inc., operating as Eagle Global Logistics, a
            subcontractor for Kellogg Brown and Root, settled for $4
            million on August 6, 2006. The settlement resolved allegations
            that EGL inflated invoices for shipments under government
            contracts for support of military operations in the Balkans,
            Afghanistan and Iraq. This settlement resolved in part a qui
            tam case that remains sealed.
      --In a second settlement arising out of the same sealed qui tam case
            discussed in the prior paragraph, EGL, Inc. paid the United
            States in June, 2007, an additional $300,000 to settle
            allegations that the company's local agent in Kuwait
            overcharged the military for rental charges on shipping
            containers to Iraq for the period from January through June,
            2006.
      --Force Protection Industry, Inc., of Ladson, South Carolina, agreed
            on August 23, 2006, to pay the United States $1.8 million to
            settle fraud claims related to the manufacture and delivery of
            armored vehicles for use in Iraq. These allegations were the
            subject of a qui tam action captioned United States ex rel.
            Chomyn v. Force Protection Industry, Inc., No. 2:05-1906
            (D.S.C.).
      --Northrop Grumman settled a voluntary disclosure case on July 18,
            2007, by paying $8 million in connection with deficient testing
            of night vision goggles and sniper scopes used throughout the
            military.
      --On December 18, 2007, the Department settled with Sioux
            Manufacturing Corp. for $1.9 million the allegations in United
            States ex rel. Kenner v. Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 2-06-CV-48 (D.
            N.D.). This qui tam case alleged that the defendant failed to
            follow specifications in making protective cloth material for
            military helmets.
        Finally, as noted, the Department is currently litigating one case
    relating to the Middle East. On June 11, 2007, the United States
    intervened in the qui tam case captioned United States ex rel. Dye v.
    ATK Thiokol, Inc., No. 1:06CV39 (D. Utah). The lawsuit alleges that ATK
    delivered defective illumination flares used in search and rescue, and
    combat operations critical to the U.S. military, including operations
    in Iraq and Afghanistan.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                             TRIBAL JUSTICE FUNDING

        Question. The Justice Department dedicated 102 Federal Bureau of
    Investigations agents to investigate violent crimes in Indian country
    in 1998. Congress provided funding for an additional 30 agents in
    fiscal year 1999, and an additional 27 agents in fiscal year 2005. As a
    result of these appropriations, there should be 159 FBI agents
    dedicated to violent crime in Indian country. However, there are only
    114 FBI agents dedicated to Indian country today. Can you please
    explain this discrepancy?
        Answer. As of June 2008, there are 104 FBI Special Agents working
    on Indian Country (IC) matters. Of this total, 30 were appropriated in
    fiscal year 1997, 30 in fiscal year 1999, and 10 in fiscal year 2005
    (the FBI's fiscal year 2005 appropriation included 27 positions, 10 of
    which were Special Agents). The remaining 34 Special Agents currently
    working IC matters have been assigned by their respective field offices
    to address specific IC issues.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted By Senator Richard C. Shelby

        Question. Is the Department of Justice pleased with all of the DHS
    charges in present and past budget requests? If so, please explain why.
    If not, please explain why. Please list all services received from the
    DHS charge since its inception.
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security charges three types of
    security costs to the Department of Justice (DOJ): basic security
    charges, building-specific security charges, and reimbursable
    collections. Basic security charges are required for all Federal
    Protective Service (FPS)-protected facilities and are based on a per-
    square footage basis. Building-specific security charges are based on
    specific security needs of the building in question. The building-
    specific security charges are comprised of two elements: operating
    expenses and amortized capital costs. Building specific charges,
    whether operating expenses or capital costs, are distributed over all
    federal users by building or facility in direct proportion to each
    customer agency's percentage of federal occupancy. Reimbursable
    collections include any agency-specific requirement or requirement
    above the building security survey recommendation. We cannot confirm
    what precise building security measures the Department has in place, as
    it would jeopardize building security. We are happy to provide this
    information to you in a more secure manner, however.

                          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGENTS

        Question. Two years ago (May 2006), the Administration's
    supplemental budget request included $2 billion to secure the Nation's
    border of which only $20 million, or 1 percent, was for the Department
    of Justice. Since September 11th, the Administration has increased the
    number of Border Patrol agents by 122 percent, from 9,000 in fiscal
    year 2000, to 20,000 in their fiscal year 2009 request.
        Provide a detail breakout by bureau the number of agents hired and
    the percentage increase by each since September 11th.
        Answer. The following chart indicates the authorized agent levels
    for the core DOJ law enforcement agencies.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                     DOJ Component                                               Percent        2009       Percent
                                                       Enacted        2008      2008 over   President's   2009 over
                                                                    enacted        2001        budget        2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FBI............................................       11,375       13,027         14.5       13,313         17.0
    DEA............................................        6,080        5,838         -4.0        5,868         -3.5
    ATF............................................        2,671        2,482         -7.1        2,482         -7.1
    USMS...........................................        2,671        3,412         27.7        3,570         33.7
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reflects direct and reimbursable authorized agent positions.

                                     OTHER

        Question. Concerns have been raised with the Subcommittee that S&E
    funds have been used for construction projects at DEA. Has DEA used any
    S&E funding for anything other than its intended purpose, without
    notifying Congress, in the past three years?
        Answer. DEA has not used any S&E funding for anything other than
    its intended purpose, without notifying Congress in the past three
    years.
        Question. Last year, DEA used the term hiring freeze while
    soliciting increased funding over the Presidents requested budget. Was
    anyone hired at DEA last year? Does the Attorney General agree that DEA
    had an actual hiring freeze? If anyone was hired at DEA, please explain
    how this is a hiring freeze. If the Attorney General agrees that DEA
    was in the midst of a hiring freeze and DEA had hired, please explain
    the Attorney General's position. If the Attorney General disagrees with
    DEA saying it was a hiring freeze, please explain that position.
        Answer. DEA did not fill positions that were funded through its
    base Salaries and Expenses Account. However, DEA did not have to limit
    hiring for positions funded through the Diversion Control Fee Account.
    DEA was able to hire a limited number of positions in the Salaries and
    Expense Account due to funding provided by Congress specifically for
    new hires. The fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution included funding for
    57 new DEA positions to support the Intelligence Community. Congress
    also provided funding in the fiscal year 2007 GWOT Supplemental, which
    allowed DEA to fill 184 positions.
        DEA lost 663 employees through attrition (including 251 Special
    Agents) from August 2006 through December 2007. Over the same time
    period, DEA hired 281 new employees (including 96 Special Agents),
    resulting in a net reduction of 382 employees (including 155 Special
    Agents).
        The Department of Justice remains fully informed of DEA's progress
    in hiring over the past year and a half. The Department has been
    engaged from the beginning in dialogue with DEA to ensure that the
    managed hiring initiative is implemented appropriately.

                          SOUTHWEST BORDER ENFORCEMENT

        Question. Two years ago (May 2006), the Administration's
    supplemental budget request included $2 billion to secure the Nation's
    border of which only $20 million, or 1 percent, was for the Department
    of Justice.
        Thousands of new Border Patrol agents have placed a tremendous
    strain on the federal criminal justice system and significantly
    increases the workload of the Department of Justice. The end result is
    that DOJ agencies must further sacrifice its limited resources to
    respond to fiscal and human resource pressures created by other federal
    agencies. Do you really think $100 million is enough for the Department
    of Justice when the Border Patrol alone is asking for four times that
    amount at $442 million?
        Answer. The Attorney General has requested $100 million in new
    funding as a part of the fiscal year 2009 budget for the
    Administration's Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative. If funded by
    Congress, the new resources will better enable the United States to
    combat the flow of illegal immigration, drugs, and weapons across our
    Southwest Border, and to arrest, detain, prosecute, and incarcerate
    violent criminals, drug offenders, and immigration violators along the
    Southwest Border. These funds will support the full range of law
    enforcement operations along our Southwest Border. The requested funds
    for fiscal year 2009 included enhancements to the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration,
    Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement, the U.S. Marshals Service, the
    Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, the Executive Office for
    Immigration and Review, and the border U.S. Attorneys' Offices. As that
    list indicates, the issues associated with border enforcement are
    multifaceted and involve many entities, not only in the Department of
    Justice but across the Executive Department, as well as the Judiciary.
    Any legislative responses to issues associated with border law
    enforcement need to address the system as a whole.

                         FUGITIVE APPREHENSION PROGRAM

        Question. Provide background on the OIG review on Adam Walsh. In
    December 2007, the USMS was notified that the Office of the Inspector
    General was initiating a review of the Department of Justice's efforts
    to implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
    (SORNA), Title 1 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of
    2006. What is the status of this investigation?
        Answer. It is an inspection (rather than an investigation) being
    conducted by the Evaluation and Inspections Division of the Office of
    the Inspector General (OIG). The purpose of the review is to determine
    the status of the Department's efforts to prevent convicted sex
    offenders from committing additional crimes by locating, apprehending,
    and prosecuting fugitive sex offenders. This inspection is currently in
    progress.
        Question. What other agencies in Justice were asked to participate?
        Answer. The following offices were asked to participate: The Office
    of Justice Programs' Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
    Registering, and Tracking (SMART); the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Crimes
    Against Children Unit, and Integrated Statistical Reporting and
    Analysis Application (ISRAA); the Criminal Division's Child
    Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS); and the Executive Office for
    United States Attorneys' Transactional Informational Government
    Accounting System (TIGAS).
        Question. Who at the Department is coordinating this effort for the
    Federal Government?
        Answer. Paul Price, Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations and
    Inspections, Office of the Inspector General, is coordinating this
    inspection at the behest of the Department of Justice's Inspector
    General, Glenn A. Fine.
        Question. Provide the statistics on the number of shootings the
    DEA, ATF, FBI and USMS had in fiscal year 2007 versus the number of
    fugitives apprehended.
        Answer. The USMS apprehended or cleared 75,812 federal fugitives
    and cleared 84,944 state and local fugitive cases in fiscal year 2007.
    The USMS had 20 shooting incidents in fiscal year 2007 during fugitive
    apprehensions. Shooting statistics involving other law enforcement
    agencies must be obtained directly from DEA, ATF, and FBI.
        Question. Does the USMS have a plan for the expansion of the USMS
    Foreign Field Offices and does the Department of Justice support that
    expansion?
        Answer. The USMS has a five-year plan for the expansion of the USMS
    Foreign Field Offices which was approved by the Director in July 2005
    and by a previous Attorney General.
        Question. What is the long term plan for the International Fugitive
    Apprehension Program?
        Answer. The USMS International Fugitive Apprehension Program five-
    year plan proposes the establishment of country-specific and regional
    offices strategically placed in host countries to best address fugitive
    workload throughout the world. The USMS will determine the most
    strategic locations to expand the foreign field offices based on
    fugitive workload, extradition activity, political factors, and
    geographic location.
        Since the approval of the foreign expansion plan, the Adam Walsh
    Child Protection and Safety Act became law. Adding the requirements of
    this new mission may change the order in which new foreign offices are
    added.
        Question. The Department was directed in the 2005 conference report
    to submit a five year plan that included a time-line and cost estimate
    to open additional international offices that are critical to the USMS
    fugitive apprehension mission. Provide the Committee with the plan
    directed in the 2005 Conference report.
        Answer. The USMS was directed by the Conference Report (H.R. 108-
    792) accompanying the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act
    to submit a five-year plan for the International Fugitive Program. The
    plan was approved by DOJ and OMB on December 23, 2005 and is attached
    as submitted.
        Question. Where is the department in implementing that plan?
        Answer. The USMS currently has three foreign offices in the
    following locations: Mexico City, Mexico; Kingston, Jamaica; and Santo
    Domingo, Dominican Republic.
        Question. Provide the plan for 2008 and 2009.
        Answer. No new resources were included in the fiscal year 2008
    enacted, but there is a pending request for one position in Mexico in
    the fiscal year 2009 USMS S&E President's budget request and one
    additional position in Mexico in the fiscal year 2009 OCDETF budget
    request for the USMS.
        Question. How many new foreign offices will be opened by the
    Marshals to catch international fugitives in the 2009 budget?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget does not include
    resources to open a new foreign field office.
        Question. The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF)
    is funded at $498 million this year. Most of the funding is for the
    1,629 law enforcement personnel including: 1,048 DEA agents, 489 FBI
    agents, 53 ATF agents, and 39 Deputy U.S. Marshals. The fiscal year
    2009 request seeks an additional 6 Deputy Marshals which would bring
    them up to 45 OCDETF Deputy Marshals. There is a memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) between the Marshals Service and DEA to work
    fugitive warrants. Under this MOU, after seven days, most DEA warrants
    are transferred over to the Marshals Service. No USMS warrants are
    transferred to DEA. If the Marshals Service is identifying and
    arresting DEA fugitives, why don't they get more OCDETF resources?
        Answer. The level of USMS funding within the OCDETF Program is
    established by the ICDE Appropriations; it is not a matter of
    discretion for the OCDETF Program. Over the last several budget cycles,
    OCDETF has gradually requested and received additional resources to
    expand the USMS's ability to assist in the OCDETF mission. The
    President has not requested additional new resources, because the
    USMS's OCDETF resource allocation already takes into account that it
    will assume responsibility for unexecuted DEA warrants once
    investigations are completed.
        The OCDETF Program provides reimbursable funding for the Drug
    Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Marshals
    Service, United States Attorneys, and the Justice Department's Criminal
    and Tax Divisions. OCDETF funding augments the direct budgets and
    appropriations of the participating agencies and these funds are
    restricted to OCDETF program expenses. The allocation of OCDETF
    resources among these participating agencies takes into account the
    level of resources needed to fulfill each agency's role in the handling
    of OCDETF drug cases. Each OCDETF agency, including the DEA and the
    USMS, has unique capabilities and expertise that are deployed in
    individual cases to maximize productivity and avoid duplication of
    effort. The USMS's contributions, while critical to the success of the
    mission, are typically more limited than the DEA's in scope and
    expense. In most OCDETF cases, the DEA's role is to investigate the
    drug trafficking organizations, and the USMS's role is to find and
    arrest the traffickers who escape the first round of arrests. Recently,
    with the addition of new USMS resources, the OCDETF Program has begun
    using the USMS in a more proactive basis during the initial arrest and
    take-down process to limit the number of traffickers who become
    fugitives. The agencies' respective OCDETF funding levels take into
    account that division of labor and expertise. Warrants are not moved
    from USMS to DEA as that is not DEA's role in the OCDETF Program.
        OCDETF funding allocations developed annually during the regular
    budget process are included in the President's budget request to
    Congress each February. The OCDETF resource requests that are submitted
    are developed within the overall National Drug Strategy and constraints
    provided by the Department of Justice and the Administration. During
    this process all aspects of each of the OCDETF components are reviewed
    with regard to the task force's mission. As the budget environment has
    become more restricted, only the highest priority budget increases have
    been approved. Over the last few years, in recognition of the need for
    the USMS's unique capabilities and expertise, the OCDETF Program has
    made it a priority to request increases for the USMS. In fiscal year
    2005, OCDETF requested and received 28 new deputies, an increase of 215
    percent. The current fiscal year 2009 President's budget includes a
    request for 6 new deputies, a 17 percent increase including the first
    full-time deputy who will be assigned to a foreign duty station. The
    OCDETF Program will continue to request additional deputies until the
    appropriate balance between investigations, prosecutions, and fugitive
    apprehensions has been met.
        Question. How much money has been provided to the Marshals from
    OCDETF for extraditions?
        Answer. The OCDETF Program does not specifically designate any of
    the funding provided to the USMS. Historically, the USMS has not
    designated any of its OCDETF funding for returning extradited fugitives
    to the United States and instead has focused its OCDETF funding on its
    highest priority of identifying, locating and apprehending fugitives,
    including those that have fled the country. Shifting resources to
    support the administrative and logistical costs associated with
    extraditions would greatly diminish fugitive apprehension efforts.
        Question. Can the USMS use OCDETF funding to support the expansion
    of the USMS Foreign Field Offices?
        Answer. Yes. The USMS can use OCDETF funding to help the expansion
    of USMS foreign field offices. The fiscal year 2009 OCDETF President's
    budget contains a request for one position for the USMS to expand
    violent narcotics case fugitive apprehension in Mexico. This is in
    addition to the aforementioned Mexico position in question right before
    this one.
        Question. Can't OCDETF money be used to augment the Foreign Field
    Office in Mexico City, Mexico and Bogota, Colombia? If not, why not? Be
    specific.
        Answer. Yes, OCDETF money could be used to augment the foreign
    field offices. There were no program enhancements in fiscal year 2007
    and the USMS OCDETF budget decreased in fiscal year 2008. The fiscal
    year 2009 OCDETF President's budget contains a request for one USMS
    position to expand violent narcotics case fugitive apprehension in
    Mexico. The USMS is in the process of initiating a temporary duty
    assignment to Bogota, Colombia using OCDETF resources, in conjunction
    with the Drug Enforcement Administration, to assess the USMS in-country
    capabilities on fugitive apprehension and extradition efforts. The
    temporary duty start date is scheduled for the Summer of fiscal year
    2008.
        Question. How many narcotics related or narco-terrorism related
    extraditions does the USMS do each year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2006, 301 narcotics/narco-terrorism related
    extraditions were completed costing $1,068,728. In fiscal year 2007,
    347 narcotics/narco-terrorism related extraditions were completed
    costing $1,166,500.
        Question. Can funding be utilized from the Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) to support narcotics related
    extraditions?
        Answer. Yes. The USMS has requested $100,000 in the fiscal year
    2009 OCDETF President's budget to support narcotics related
    extraditions. The USMS has also sought funding through the Asset
    Forfeiture Program and OCDETF to cover the costs incurred by the USMS
    for extraditing these targets and will continue to pursue future
    funding for this essential mission.
        Question. If so, has it been used for this purpose?
        Answer. The USMS has not previously used any outside funding
    resources for this purpose.
        Question. If not please describe in detail why.
        Answer. Funding was allocated to maximize performance output.
    Domestic OCDETF fugitive operations would have been markedly reduced by
    any spending priority shift to extradition funding.
        Question. Isn't it true that in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year
    2007 approximately half of the extradition missions were conducted on
    subjects wanted in major narcotics cases, including criminal
    indictments filed under the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
    (OCDETF)?
        Answer. Yes. Please see stats in next question.
        Question. Specifically in fiscal year 2006, 301 of the 685 missions
    completed were for narcotics, 72 of which were specifically for OCDETF
    violators. In fiscal year 2007, 347 of the 772 missions completed were
    for major narcotics violators, 51 of which were OCDETF cases. How much
    funding has OCDETF given to the Marshals to support these efforts from
    fiscal year 2004 to today? Be specific.
        Answer.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Positions   Investigators      FTE         Amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2004..........................................           13            13            13   $2,125,000
    Fiscal year 2005..........................................           41            39            27   $6,345,000
    Fiscal year 2006..........................................           41            39            36   $6,932,000
    Fiscal year 2007..........................................           41            39            39   $8,447,000
    Fiscal year 2008..........................................           41            39            41   $8,272,000
    Fiscal year 2009 President's request......................           47            45            44  $10,221,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Provide a detailed list of all funding provided by OCDETF
    to support the extraditions and deportations carried out by the
    Marshals Service.
        Answer. OCDETF does not limit the activities that USMS can use
    OCDETF funding for as long as the costs are related to an OCDETF
    fugitive. The USMS has historically chosen not to allocate OCDETF
    funding for the logistical and administrative costs of extraditions and
    deportations.
        Question. Provide all of the requests since fiscal year 2005 from
    the U.S. Marshals Service to OCDETF for funding assistance? Be specific
    as to why each was approved or rejected. Be specific about all higher
    priorities funded.
        Answer. As noted in the above response, the OCDETF Program provides
    the USMS funding on an annual basis through the budget process. This
    process allows the USMS to submit budget enhancements to the OCDETF
    Program for inclusion in its annual President's budget request. The
    details of these requests are pre-decisional and not releasable.
        However, since fiscal year 2005, the following program enhancement
    requests were requested by the Administration for the OCDETF USMS
    Program: an additional 28 positions and $4,320,000 in fiscal year 2005
    to create OCDETF fugitive apprehension units throughout the nine OCDETF
    regions and assume responsibility for all OCDETF fugitives; 9 positions
    and $2,072,000 in fiscal year 2006 to increase the capacity of the USMS
    to apprehend OCDETF fugitives; and an additional 6 positions and
    $1,714,000 for the USMS to address OCDETF fugitive apprehension by
    adding a Deputy U.S. Marshal to each of the border Districts; one
    Deputy U.S. Marshal in Mexico City, addressing the apprehension of
    OCDETF fugitives that are linked to CPOTs and Gatekeepers; and funding
    to assist in defraying the costs of extradition incurred by the USMS
    when bringing a fugitive out of Mexico back to the United States to
    face prosecution. These requests are on top of the mandatory
    inflationary cost requests by the Program. When compared to the other
    OCDETF components' requests, the USMS has grown at a significantly
    higher rate. Only DEA and USAs have also received enhancements during
    this time frame. While the USMS OCDETF budget has increased 289 percent
    since fiscal year 2004, the USA OCDETF budget grew 32 percent, and the
    DEA OCDETF budget grew only 12 percent.
        In addition, during this period the OCDETF Program has relied upon
    reprogrammed funds from prior year balances to supply requisite funding
    for short-term, targeted fugitive apprehension missions, called Special
    OCDETF Response Teams, or SORT Operations. Nearly $1.2 million in
    reprogrammed monies were provided to the USMS by the OCDETF Executive
    Office during this time. The OCDETF Program continues to support the
    USMS, as they are an integral part of the Program.
        Question. How much will OCDETF be assisting the marshals with
    funding in fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. The USMS resource assistance by OCDETF in fiscal year 2008
    is 41 positions, including 39 Deputy Marshals, totaling $8,272,000.
        Question. Provide all requests since 2001 made by the Marshals for
    assistance from OCDETF, how much funding assistance was provided for
    each request, and the metrics used to determine what requests to
    support and reject?
        Answer. See table below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Positions   Investigators     Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2001...............           13            13    $1,980,000
    Fiscal year 2002...............           13            13    $2,049,000
    Fiscal year 2003...............           13            13    $2,095,000
    Fiscal year 2004...............           13            13    $2,125,000
    Fiscal year 2005...............           41            39    $6,345,000
    Fiscal year 2006...............           41            39    $6,932,000
    Fiscal year 2007...............           41            39    $8,447,000
    Fiscal year 2008...............           41            39    $8,272,000
    Fiscal year 2009 President's              47            45   $10,221,000
     request.......................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The United States Marshals Service (USMS) plays a significant role
    in the OCDETF Program. The USMS is responsible for approximately 90
    percent of all OCDETF fugitive investigations. Currently, there are
    over 7,200 OCDETF fugitives nationwide, 32 percent of which are
    considered leaders in their organization. In fiscal year 2007, the USMS
    arrested 1,449 OCDETF fugitives--an average of 42 arrests per OCDETF
    U.S. Marshal FTE, clearing 1,492 warrants by arrest.
        When the OCDETF Program began in 1982, the Marshals received an
    allocation of 13 positions and this allocation remained unchanged for
    over twenty years. Fugitive apprehension is a critical element of the
    OCDETF Program's success. However, while other OCDETF member agencies
    increased their workforce generating many new OCDETF investigations and
    thereby increased the workload of the USMS, the USMS OCDETF resources
    remained fixed. In fiscal year 2003, a management study was done on the
    participation levels of the OCDETF Components which indicated that the
    level of participation by the USMS should be 113 positions given the
    current workloads. The OCDETF Program determined that this level of
    increase needed to be implemented in phased process. The fiscal year
    2005 President's request represented the first phase of the process
    resulting in the USMS receiving 28 new positions a 215 percent
    increase. Each year since, the OCDETF Program has sought to
    incrementally increase the USMS to reach the ultimate goal of 113
    positions.

                                           USMS HISTORICAL OCDETF ENHANCEMENTS
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Enhancement requests      Enhancements received
                            Fiscal year                         ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Positions     Funding     Positions      Funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2005.......................................................           37       $5,801           28        3,932
    2006.......................................................           67       13,024  ...........          450
    2007.......................................................           34        7,181  ...........        1,940
    2008.......................................................           20        8,032  ...........         (175)
    2009.......................................................           19        4,690      ( \1\ )       ( \1\ )
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pending.

        Question. What are the participation levels in OCDETF among the DOJ
    agencies? What are the overall percentages that each agency initiates
    and participates in OCEDTF cases?
        Answer. Please see table below.

                                                                              AGENCY PARTICIPATION IN OCDETF INVESTIGATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year 2001    Fiscal year 2002    Fiscal year 2003    Fiscal year 2004    Fiscal year 2005    Fiscal year 2006    Fiscal year 2007    Fiscal year 2008
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATF.............................       305      22.8       212      23.5       165      23.4       212      24.0       261      25.6       258      26.7       273      26.9       211      30.1
    DEA.............................     1,117      83.6       781      86.6       623      88.5       803      91.0       925      90.6       870      89.9       918      90.4       625      89.2
    FBI.............................       566      42.4       333      36.9       247      35.1       309      35.0       344      33.7       325      33.6       334      32.9       233      33.2
    ICE.............................       655      49.0       504      55.9       387      55.0       467      52.9       465      45.5       390      40.3       424      41.7       289      41.2
    IRS.............................       526      39.4       419      46.5       378      53.7       451      51.1       438      42.9       356      36.8       469      46.2       276      39.4
    USCG............................        15       1.1        19       2.1         9       1.3        16       1.8        11       1.1        16       1.7        21       2.1        11       1.6
    USMS............................       307      23.0       263      29.2       209      29.7       300      34.0       340      33.3       406      41.9       511      50.3       325      46.4
    State & Local...................     1,205      90.2       806      89.4       617      87.6       768      87.1       922      90.3       867      89.6       901      88.7       647      92.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                               AGENCY SPONSORSHIP OF OCDETF INVESTIGATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year 2001    Fiscal year 2002    Fiscal year 2003    Fiscal year 2004    Fiscal year 2005    Fiscal year 2006    Fiscal year 2007    Fiscal year 2008
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent   Number    Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATF.............................        60       4.5        41       4.5        27       3.8        42       4.8        54       5.3        71       7.3        59       5.8        49       7.0
    DEA.............................       908      68.0       624      69.2       536      76.1       710      80.5       816      79.9       784      81.0       821      80.8       568      81.0
    FBI.............................       310      23.2       182      20.2       124      17.6       152      17.2       168      16.5       164      16.9       179      17.6       135      19.3
    ICE.............................       168      12.6       146      16.2        86      12.2       143      16.2       137      13.4       132      13.6       127      12.5        93      13.3
    IRS.............................        95       7.1        80       8.9        77      10.9        80       9.1        70       6.9        52       5.4        85       8.4        49       7.0
    USCG............................         1       0.1         1       0.1  ........  ........         1       0.1  ........  ........  ........  ........         2       0.2  ........  ........
    USMS............................         1       0.1         2       0.2  ........  ........         2       0.2         1       0.1         8       0.8  ........  ........  ........  ........
    State & Local...................       163      12.2       100      11.1        81      11.5       106      12.0       153      15.0       136      14.0       140      13.8       126      18.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Do they receive adequate/appropriate funding in support
    of their contributions to the OCDETF program?
        Answer. Yes, the USMS receives appropriate funding for its
    participation in the OCDETF Program. The OCDETF Program was established
    to ensure that an appropriate level of participation from all of its
    member agencies were directed at the Department of Justice/
    Administration's highest priority long-term and complex drug
    trafficking and money laundering investigations so that individual
    agencies could not redirect these funds to their respective short term
    priorities. This strategy has been hugely successful with the
    dismantlement of many of the infamous drug cartels from around the
    world who once thought they were untouchable by U.S. law enforcement.
        This Departmental funding priority is carefully balanced each year
    during the development of the President's budget against the other
    priorities within the Department and the availability of new funds.
    This has become more difficult in recent years due to budget
    constraints and the war on terror. Given all of these factors, the USMS
    OCDETF Program has grown at a faster rate than the other OCDETF
    components in recognition of the increasing USMS serves within the
    Program.
        Question. The USMS currently supports the U.S. National Central
    Bureau of Interpol (USNCB) with management positions in the Alien/
    Fugitive Division and also holds the current Deputy Director position.
    What funding does the USMS receive to support this participation?
        Answer. The salaries, benefits, and overtime of these positions are
    funded by the USMS salaries and expenses (S&E) base. Over and above the
    position costs, the USMS receives an annual operating budget of
    approximately $44,000 to support the USNCB.
        Question. How much does the USMS International Extradition Program
    cost each year and how is the program funded? Provide a detail breakout
    of the real costs associated with this program by fiscal year from
    2006-08 and proposed for fiscal year 2009 and the money actually
    allocated to this program by the Department.
        Answer. The International Extradition Program is funded from the
    operational base of the USMS S&E appropriation. The Department does not
    directly allocate funding for USMS extraditions. The following table
    shows historical extradition expenses, not including the salaries and
    benefits of the USMS participants:

                            USMS EXTRADITION EXPENSES
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Cost of
                            Fiscal year                         extraditions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006......................................................         2,481
    2007......................................................         2,705
    2008......................................................     \1\ 3,600
    2009......................................................     \2\ 3,600
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.
    \2\ Projection.

        Question. The USMS Extradition Program has increased the number of
    missions completed every year since 2001. Has there been any comparable
    increase in personnel to support the increase in workload over that
    same period of time? Provide a detail list of workload increase and the
    number of positions increased for this program.
        Answer. The USMS has the statutory responsibility for conducting
    all extraditions to the United States from foreign countries, as well
    as supporting extraditions to foreign countries from the United States.
    This includes all individuals ordered extradited and/or surrendered,
    regardless of whether they are wanted by a federal, state, or local
    jurisdiction. As crime and wanted fugitives become more global, and the
    efforts of the USMS Domestic and International Fugitive Programs become
    more successful, the numbers of international fugitives apprehended and
    extradited to face justice has and will increase. Currently the USMS
    International Branch is responsible for coordinating all extraditions
    with the Department of Justice, State Department, and foreign
    governments. The International Branch has two full-time employees in
    the Extradition Program: an Extradition Program Manager, and one
    Extradition Specialist--a position that was initially created in the
    early 1980's. Personnel who conduct the actual extraditions are most
    often provided by the local district office where the extradited
    fugitive is being returned or is being held pending surrender to a
    foreign authority. The additional cost of the program is primarily due
    to the travel expenses of the prisoner and the USMS escorts dispatched
    to conduct the mission.

                            USMS EXTRADITION HISTORY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total
                                                                extraditions
                            Fiscal year                              and
                                                                deportations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2002......................................................           340
    2003......................................................           521
    2004......................................................           541
    2005......................................................           653
    2006......................................................           685
    2007......................................................           772
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What is the impact on the USMS Extradition Program when
    extradited subjects charged with ``extra-territorial'' narcotics or
    terrorism statutes (i.e., 21:959 or 21:960) are returned to the United
    States?
        Answer. The primary use of USMS-contracted dedicated flights in the
    past two fiscal years have been fugitives charged under 21 USC  959,
    or ``959'' indictments. They must be brought back to the United States
    under escort directly to the demanding jurisdiction. If the U.S. Port
    of Entry is a location other than the charging district, the subject
    must be tried in the district of formal entry to the United States.
    This causes great concern to the Department and U.S. Attorneys as their
    prosecutors, case preparation, files, agents, and witnesses are usually
    in the charging district and substantial resources would be needed to
    move the case to another district. The USMS faces several challenges in
    performing these extradition missions. For example, if no commercial
    flights exist from the country of origin, a contracted dedicated flight
    is the only option. If international flights can be identified from the
    country of origin, or a country will grant the USMS transit authority
    for a connecting flight, the USMS will utilize the most cost effective
    means. Since most of the individuals extradited on ``959'' indictments
    are high-level drug traffickers or individuals associated with narco-
    terrorism, security for the prisoner and escorts is always a concern.
    These complicating factors increase the average cost of these ``959''
    fugitive extraditions, especially if chartered aircraft are the only
    option available to support the mission, to an average of three times
    the cost of a non-959 extradition. The total cost of all ``959''
    indictments completed in one fiscal year has risen from $53,040 in
    fiscal year 2004 to $688,450 in fiscal year 2007.
        Question. In fiscal year 2007, 53 missions were completed at a
    direct cost to the USMS of $688,450 or approximately 25.8 percent of
    the total extradition budget what is the Department doing to assist the
    Marshals Service with these spiraling expenses? Be specific.
        Answer. The Department takes increasing costs into account in
    determining priorities regarding law enforcement missions.
        Question. How will the implementation of the new Adam Walsh Child
    Protection and Safety Act of 2006 affect the USMS International
    Extradition Program?
        Answer. The number of extradition missions generated as a result of
    the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA) investigations is
    expected to drastically affect the Extradition Program. It is believed
    that many child predators travel internationally in pursuit of the
    child sex trade. Many of those predators are previously convicted sex
    offenders who are not in compliance and have failed to report that
    travel. They could readily retreat to familiar foreign locations once
    they are the focus of federal apprehension.
        Question. What is the estimated number of sex offenders who travel
    internationally to pursue and engage in illegal sex activity?
        Answer. There is no mechanism at this time to capture how many sex
    offenders (compliant or non-compliant) travel abroad. The DOJ Child
    Exploitation and Obscenities Section and the Sex Offender Management
    Apprehension Research and Tracking (SMART) office are working on
    guidelines to address the issue.
        Question. What are we doing to encourage our international partners
    to increase their commitment to assist us with non-compliant sex
    offenders who will be charged and eventually located internationally in
    countries such as Costa Rica, Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines, and
    other Far East locations that cater to the underage sex business?
        Answer. In 2005, the USMS formulated a 5-year plan to expand the
    number of foreign postings that would help facilitate assistance with
    pursuing non-compliant sex offenders overseas. Currently, the USMS has
    a strong relationship with entities such as INTERPOL, NCMEC, and the
    Department of State that provides a framework to track and apprehend
    sex offenders traveling abroad. The USMS will work closely with these
    departments to create the National Sex Offender Targeting Center
    (NSOTC). NSOTC will assist law enforcement in tracking sex offenders
    both domestically and internationally.
        Question. What is the Justice Department doing to ensure that the
    Marshals Service has the resources and the manpower in these countries
    to assist in the hunting down of these predators?
        Answer. As stated above, the Justice Department works closely with
    partner agencies to apprehend these individuals overseas and supports
    the plan developed by the USMS to expand overseas presence to
    facilitate assistance in the pursuit of non-compliant sex offenders.
        Question. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) conservatively
    estimates that the Marshals Service would need to hire at least 350 new
    Deputy Marshals to take a lead role in executing a significant number
    of additional warrants for unregistered sex offenders. CBO estimates it
    would cost $25 million year one and $220 million over a five-year
    period, including costs for space training, supervision and support
    staff. What new resources are requested by the Department in fiscal
    year 2009 to reduce the number of sex offenders from our streets?
        Answer. USMS actively assists state, local, and tribal territories
    in tracking and apprehending non-compliant sex offenders. No new
    resources have been requested for fiscal year 2009 for additional
    Deputy Marshals in the execution of this mission.
        Question. If the answer is zero what kind of message does this
    send?
        Answer. The USMS wants to send the message that we take our role
    that is outlined in the AWA very seriously. We want to ensure that the
    entire law enforcement community is aware that we will assist them in
    their efforts to track and apprehend non-compliant sex offenders. We
    want the public to be aware that we are uniting with state and local
    law enforcement in order to protect our children and our community from
    sexual predators.
        Question. Is this giving sex offenders a ``free ride''?
        Answer. The USMS recognizes the danger of having over 100,000 sex
    offenders roaming our communities with no supervision. There is no
    toleration of sexual abuse or exploitation by the USMS. USMS actively
    works with all levels of law enforcement to track and apprehend sexual
    predators.
        Question. How many DUSMs would you need to fully implement Adam
    Walsh?
        Answer. The USMS will work with DOJ and other agencies within the
    Administration to determine the appropriate level of resources to
    address its responsibilities as assigned by the Act.
        Question. How many are requested in the fiscal year 2009 budget?
        Answer. USMS resource requests for the AWA were included in the
    fiscal year 2008 budget submission to Congress; however, it was not
    part of the enacted appropriation. The fiscal year 2009 USMS
    President's budget does not contain any additional resources for sex
    offender enforcement.
        Question. The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 authorized
    the Marshals Service to establish Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs)
    to locate and apprehend the most violent federal, state, and local
    fugitives. Over the years this Subcommittee has provided resources to
    the Marshals Service to establish six of these task forces. Results
    have been very impressive. Before there were RFTFs, the Marshals
    Service apprehended around 46,000 fugitives a year. Five years later,
    and with six RFTFs, the Marshals apprehended close to 95,000 felony
    fugitives--an increase of 106 percent. These fugitives are the ``worst
    of the worst,'' averaging more than four prior arrests each. Our
    communities are safer because taking these criminals off the streets
    prevented 378,000 crimes from being committed. How many new resources
    are requested in this budget for this program?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 USMS President's budget contains no
    enhancements to establish new RFTFs.
        Question. Even though the Marshals Service arrests more fugitives
    than all other federal agencies combined, DOJ in this budget request
    fails to recognize that the Marshals Service is one of its
    investigating agencies. Why are requests for more investigative
    resources not provided in this request?
        Answer. The USMS, in coordination with the DOJ, develop resource
    requests that reflect the Administration's priorities across all law
    enforcement components.

                               JUDICIAL SECURITY

        Question. The Court Security Act gives new responsibilities to the
    USMS, yet no additional funds were requested in fiscal year 2009. The
    Act authorized $20 million each year through 2011, but no additional
    funds are part of the fiscal year 2009 request.
        On March 11, 2008, ABC News and CNN reported that threats against
    federal judges and prosecutors are growing at an alarming rate. Threats
    against the federal judiciary and prosecutors have increased 69 percent
    over the past five years. Threats are on track to rise this year for
    the fifth straight year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
    conservatively estimates that it would take $409 million over five
    years to provide sufficient resources to the USMS to provide increased
    court security.
        If the Marshals Service is under-staffed to perform its core
    mission of judicial security, how will they meet this mission
    requirement? Will these agents be pulled from the regional task forces?
    Provide a detailed breakout of where these manpower resources will come
    from.
        Answer. The USMS will continue to rely on District Security
    Officers (off-duty or retired law enforcement officers that the agency
    hires on an hourly or daily basis), overtime, and Deputy Marshals
    detailed from other district offices to meet mission requirements.
    Individual district offices are responsible for providing the staffing
    necessary to meet daily mission requirements; however, USMS
    Headquarters assists in coordinating travel for out-of-district Deputy
    Marshals when mission requirements exceed available resources in a
    district office.
        As an example, in fiscal year 2007, 307 out-of-district Deputy
    Marshals were utilized in order to staff protection details where there
    was inadequate staffing in the home district. The districts providing
    the resources then used Detention Enforcement Officers, District
    Security Officers (who work under personal services contracts), and
    overtime to meet their individual mission requirements.
        Deputy Marshals assigned to a district office may also be pulled as
    needed from any task force duties, including a Regional Fugitive Task
    Force, in order to staff critical judicial security missions. Deputy
    Marshals permanently assigned to Regional Fugitive Task Forces are
    pulled from their task force duties only in rare or exceptional
    circumstances, such as post-Hurricane Katrina duties in Mississippi and
    Louisiana.
        Question. The Committee understands that the Secret Service has 140
    people who analyze threats made against 40 officials. The Marshals
    Service has 35 people to analyst threats made against 7,700 judges and
    federal prosecutors. How do you address this disparity?
        Answer. The USMS Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) presently
    has 25 people to analyze threats made against the 7,700 judges and
    prosecutors. Both the USMS and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
    proactively investigate threats and inappropriate communications
    directed at their protectees by conducting protective investigations.
    The USSS assigns full-time protective details for all of their
    protectees; however, the USMS does not assign full-time protective
    details to 7,700 individuals.
        If a judge or prosecutor is threatened, the USMS conducts a
    protective investigation to assess the severity of the threat. If
    required, a protective response is initiated and a protective detail
    assigned. Prior to and during the protective response, a Deputy Marshal
    conducts a protective investigation to mitigate the threat and any
    danger to the protectee. Judges are protected primarily only when they
    are at a U.S. Courthouse.
        Question. Without resources to improve the timeliness of threat
    assessments, how will you effectively predict who the next attacker is
    or who the next judicial victim will be?
        Answer. The USMS uses a behavior-based approach in conducting
    investigations. Predicting exactly who the next attacker or victim will
    be is difficult. USMS relies on statistical analysis to identify
    probable attackers. Studies have shown that individuals who pose a
    threat often do not communicate a warning in advance of their actions.
    Based on these studies, a methodology has been developed to look at a
    subject's behavior rather than strictly at the substance of what they
    may be communicating to the protectee or to law enforcement. The
    methodology includes an analysis of what actions they have taken to
    carry out an attack, statements they have made to others around them, a
    subject's individual criminal history, history of approaching possible
    victims, possession of weapons, and any life-changing experiences the
    subject may have undergone. When a subject comes to the attention of
    the judiciary or the USMS, proactive protective investigations pay
    attention to these indicators in their threat assessments.
        Identification of the next attacker or victim can be aided through
    enhancements in information technology. The threat management database
    currently used by the USMS was primarily designed for fugitive
    investigations rather than protective investigations, and as such the
    search capability and the automated analysis tools specific to
    protective investigations are limited. Four of the recommendations by
    the 2007 DOJ Office of Inspector General's (OIG) review of the USMS
    Judicial Security Process related to improving the threat assessment
    process and the databases that identify and track potential threats.
        An additional information technology tool that is used in the
    identification of potential attackers or victims is link analysis. The
    USMS has acquired a link analysis tool to interface with and search
    numerous USMS databases. A subsequent phase could expand the search
    capabilities of this analysis to include searches of other agencies'
    databases, court records, and open source data to aid in the
    investigation and identification of potential attackers.
        Question. How many DUSMs would you need to fully implement the
    Court Security Act?
        Answer. The USMS will work with DOJ and other agencies within the
    Administration to determine the appropriate level of resources to
    address its responsibilities as assigned by the Act.
        Question. How many are requested in the 2009 budget?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 request does not include any increases
    for the Court Security Act, but instead anticipates that the USMS will
    continue to rely on District Security Officers (contract guards with
    prior law enforcement experience), overtime for existing employees, and
    Deputy Marshals detailed from other districts to meet the requirements
    of the Act.
        Question. What challenges do you face in court security based on
    the fiscal year 2008 funding levels?
        Answer. The greatest challenge faced by the USMS is to provide a
    minimum standard of protection for judges, prosecutors, the court
    family and the public. Limited resources to address the constant
    pressure to produce and house more prisoners, investigate and apprehend
    more fugitives and sex offenders, and investigate and mitigate more
    risks posed to protectees is a tremendous challenge.
        Since 2005, the USMS has updated and appropriately raised the
    standards for judicial security. The USMS has changed polices and
    procedures related to everything from threat investigations to personal
    security details, re-engineering judicial security in the USMS.
        To address these challenges the USMS has combined the use of JSIs
    and PIIs to focus expertise on judicial threat analysis and
    investigation.
        Question. List by protectee the number of agents and vehicles
    assigned to each detail.
        Answer. Protectee detail information is sensitive information that
    could reveal USMS staffing levels and lead to security vulnerabilities
    affecting our protective mission. Therefore, specific details are not
    released outside the agency. In general, the number of Deputy Marshals
    and vehicles assigned to a protection detail varies and is determined
    on a case-by-case basis. The level of protection detail, depending on
    the severity of the threat, can range from an escort detail of a single
    Deputy Marshal to a full protection detail of a dozen or more Deputy
    Marshals. An escort detail is the minimum level of protection and a
    full protection detail is the maximum level of protection for USMS
    protective missions.
        Question. The cost of each protectee detail in 2007, to date in
    2008 and the projected year end cost.
        Answer. The USMS expended $1,857,000 for the operational cost of
    protection details in 2007 and $595,000 to date in 2008 with a
    projected total of $865,000 for the entire year. Totals exclude the
    regular payroll costs of Deputy Marshals.
        Question. How many agents in each shift of each detail?
        Answer. All protective details are staffed by Deputy U.S. Marshals.
    The number of Deputy Marshals and vehicles assigned to a protection
    detail varies and is determined on a case-by-case basis. The level of
    protection detail, depending on the severity of the threat, can range
    from an escort detail of a single Deputy Marshal to a full protection
    detail of a dozen or more Deputy Marshals. An escort detail is the
    minimum level of protection and a full protection detail is the maximum
    level of protection for USMS protective missions.

                             COURTHOUSE RENOVATIONS

        Question. In 1997, the U.S. Marshals Service proactively designed
    and implemented a National Security Survey to determine how well our
    400 federal courthouses measured up to security standards. Assaults and
    injuries in cellblocks place Deputy Marshals, pretrial and probation
    officers, and public defenders at grave risk. These same personnel are
    routinely exposed to airborne pathogens including hepatitis and
    tuberculosis due to improper heating and ventilation systems within
    cellblocks. The risk of escape is high when there are no segregated
    prisoner movement areas because Deputy Marshals must move prisoners
    through public corridors, stairwells, and elevators. Recent estimates
    suggest that $88 million would be needed over the next four years to
    renovate and remedy existing security deficiencies in cellblocks,
    vehicle sally ports, prisoner elevators, secure circulation areas, and
    holding cells. Another $30 million would be needed for cameras, alarms,
    and courthouse security systems.
        The 2009 request provides only $2 million for construction. A $2
    million request doesn't even cover the inflationary cost of maintenance
    and minor repairs. How will you allocate the $2 million to address what
    is identified as a $100 million problem?
        Answer. The $2 million included in the fiscal year 2009 request
    will be used to help meet expenses for those construction and
    renovation projects that are already in progress and that have the most
    pressing and immediate needs.
        Additionally, the 2009 budget proposes to consolidate the
    construction account within the larger salaries and expenses account.
    This proposal will increase the USMS flexibility to reprogram funds to
    address emergent construction needs and better prioritize funding.
        Question. Is the safety of the federal judiciary and all its
    participants a priority?
        Answer. Yes, it is the primary role and mission of the USMS to
    protect the Federal judiciary (28 U.S.C. 566(a)). The USMS Director's
    priority to ``Enhance Judicial Threat Management and Analysis'' fully
    supports the Department of Justice Strategic Goal 3.1.1 to ``Protect
    judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings, and
    ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings
    or confinement.''
        Question. Is the health and safety of the federal agents who handle
    these prisoners addressed in this budget request? If the answer is yes
    explain why.
        Answer. The $2 million included in the fiscal year 2009 request
    will be used to help meet expenses for those construction and
    renovation projects that are already in progress and that have the most
    pressing and immediate needs.
        Additionally, the 2009 budget proposes to consolidate the
    construction account within the larger salaries and expenses account.
    This proposal will increase the USMS flexibility to reprogram funds to
    address emergent construction needs and better prioritize funding.
        Question. When the Administration requests only $2 million for
    construction each fiscal year, how long will it take to make sure that
    all courthouses are up to the latest security standards?
        Answer. At $2 million per year to renovate courthouse facilities,
    USMS-occupied space will continue to raise National Security Survey
    scores, which have significantly improved between 1999 and 2007. In
    1999, only 21 facilities met minimum standards. In 2002, 65 facilities
    met minimum standards. In 2006, 94 facilities met minimum standards.
    This improvement was the direct result of increasing funding in the
    Construction Appropriation and the S&E funding designated for
    courthouse security systems. Security scores for USMS facilities
    increased 4 percent-10 percent in many areas between the 2002 and 2006
    surveys. Security scores increased 15 percent-22 percent in major
    categories between the 1999 and 2006 surveys. The USMS utilizes a
    National Security Survey (originally developed in 1997 and refined
    every three years) to prioritize construction and renovation projects.

                          SOUTHWEST BORDER ENFORCEMENT

        Question. Two years ago (May 2006), the Administration's
    supplemental budget request included $2 billion to secure the Nation's
    border of which only $20 million, or 1 percent, was for the Department
    of Justice.
        When DHS ICE agents raid a plant and hundreds of illegal workers
    are detained, who is responsible for transporting these aliens to
    holding facilities?
        Answer. USMS does not participate in the detention of workers
    charged with administrative violations. However, upon arrest for
    Federal criminal offenses, DHS ICE agents transport detainees to
    holding facilities and to their initial court appearances. At the
    initial appearances, the judge remands detainees to USMS custody after
    which USMS Deputy Marshals perform all prisoner transports.
        Question. Why has DOJ not actively pursued reimbursement from DHS
    entities who summon the U.S. Marshal Service to transport mass amounts
    of illegal aliens who are detained?
        Answer. The USMS will work with DOJ and the affected DHS components
    to ensure that the proper funding mechanism is in place to fulfill the
    USMS responsibilities.
        Question. Are you unaware of the Border Patrol's enforcement
    efforts? Why does the Department not receive full reimbursement for all
    Border Patrol arrests that are then handed over to DOJ custody?
        Answer. The USMS is aware of the Customs and Border Protection's
    enforcement efforts that are conducted on the Southwest Border. The
    USMS will work with DOJ and the affected DHS components to ensure that
    the proper funding mechanism is in place to fulfill the USMS
    responsibilities.
        The USMS and Customs Border Protection (CBP) are exploring options
    to integrate the DHS IDENT automated booking system with the DOJ JABS
    automated booking system. Rather than establish a reimbursable
    agreement involving funding, the hope is that CBP would provide
    personnel to work alongside USMS staff on a temporary duty basis to
    integrate the systems. Providing CBP personnel (both government and
    contractors) to assist the USMS may be a way to improve
    interoperability without a establishing a reimbursable agreement.
        Question. ICE is requesting $30 million more for worksite
    investigations in areas no where near the Southwest Border. ICE arrests
    those who violate workforce rules involving document fraud, illegal
    workers, drug and human smuggling, as well as violent crime. These
    people are being prosecuted in federal court, which places further
    strain on DOJ resources and personnel and creates an immediate
    infrastructure crisis. What new resources are requested in this budget
    to address this?
        Answer. None. At the time the USMS was preparing its fiscal year
    2009 budget submission, the scope of ICE worksite enforcement efforts
    was unknown. The $12.7 million requested in the fiscal year 2009 budget
    was based on Southwest Border initiatives alone.
        Question. When will the Department request resources to respond to
    other immigration-related enforcement initiatives that are not on the
    border?
        Answer. The USMS will work with DOJ and the Administration to
    determine the appropriate level of funding for immigration-related
    enforcement initiatives, including those impacting the interior parts
    of the country.

                         LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNICATIONS

        Question. In March 2007, the Inspector General reported that, of
    the 30,000 DOJ radios, 79 percent are not airwave compliant; 95 percent
    lack federally mandated security; and 73 percent are obsolete. The
    report found that this failure to upgrade DOJ components' antiquated
    communications represent an unnecessary risk to the safety of agents. I
    have heard cost estimates to seriously address this issue are in the
    $20 billion range. Do you believe that $20 billion is a reasonable
    estimate of the cost?
        Answer. No, $20 billion is not a reasonable estimate. The
    Department has never asked for nor estimated the size of the program to
    be $20 billion. The Department estimates that the implementation of the
    modernized Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) across the four DOJ Law
    Enforcement Components--Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives (ATF), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau
    of Investigation (FBI), and United States Marshals Service (USMS)--will
    cost $1.23 billion over 6 years. Previously submitted estimates were
    well over $2 billion for a ten year implementation, but as we have
    briefed Appropriations staff within the last two months, we have worked
    with the components to streamline and simplify the implementation to
    cut cost estimates significantly and to reduce implementation time
    estimates by 40 percent.
        This estimated cost would meet all security and narrowband
    requirements and improve existing coverage for the four components. In
    addition there will be operational costs (maintenance of legacy radio
    systems, maintenance of the modernized IWN, technical refresh, and
    programmatic support) of $462 million over the six year period. This
    O&M funding covers more than just break/fix costs, it also pays for the
    management of the program, site rental fees, monitoring of the network
    and most importantly, it covers the expenses of special events such as
    the Super Bowl and the political conventions.
        Question. Do the DOJ components have adequate LAND Mobile Radio
    communications capability to carry out their core missions?
        Answer. The components are carrying out core missions with existing
    legacy LMR equipment. However, this capability is limited by the age of
    their legacy communications systems. As cited in the March 2007 DOJ
    Office of the Inspector General Report, the majority of the
    Department's LMR communications systems are over 10 years old and
    function in an analog mode rather than a digital mode, which means they
    have limited functionality and diminished voice communications quality.
    Most DOJ legacy radio systems: Are not narrowband compliant; do not
    provide appropriate encryption to protect sensitive information; are no
    longer supported by the manufacturer; provide little to no
    interoperability with any other agencies; and cannot facilitate
    wireless data transfers.
        Question. Are current communications systems in compliance with
    presidential narrow band mandates and/or National Institute of
    Standards and Technology (NIST) security guidelines?
        Answer. No. The DOJ Inspector General's report on IWN from March of
    2007 estimated that 21 percent of the Department's radios are compliant
    with presidential narrowband mandates and 5 percent are capable of
    meeting NIST security guidelines. Since March of 2007, the limited
    funds have been prudently used to improve narrowband compliance to 30
    percent and NIST security compliance to 15 percent.
        Question. Is the IWN [pronounced ``I win''] Seattle Blaine pilot
    project a feasible model for the future?
        Answer. The Seattle Blaine pilot is a feasible model for major
    metropolitan areas with high federal agent user densities. Areas with
    large numbers of agents typically compete for limited spectral
    resources. These areas would benefit from the implementation of the
    trunking technology solution implemented in the IWN in Seattle. The
    Department would like to remind the Committee that the Seattle project
    was a pilot and as such we expected to learn what worked and what did
    not work. As a result of our experience there, we now have a plan for
    where trunking solutions should be implemented, and where it is not
    cost effective.
        Question. In the event of another attack, absent communications
    interoperability, how will federal law enforcement officers communicate
    with each other?
        Answer. At the direction of the Congress, DOJ started the 25 Cities
    High Risk Metropolitan Area Interoperability Project in 2005. This
    effort is nearly complete and has greatly improved communications
    capabilities in 25 of America's largest cities. The program encourages
    the preparation of local communications plans for use in emergency
    situations, the design and implementation of shared interoperability
    radio channels, and the standardization of technical solutions that
    contribute to interoperability. Federal law enforcement officers are
    able to use, where they exist, the 25 Cities interoperability
    solutions. More information about the successful, and nearly complete,
    program can be provided upon request.
        Short of an installed and fully functional communications system
    that allows for seamless interoperability between federal, state, and
    local users, federal law enforcement officers generally depend upon
    locally prepared and distributed communications procedures that
    describe emergency communications practices and protocols that enable,
    albeit and possibly in a limited fashion, law enforcement and public
    safety entities to interoperate. In the case of a major unplanned
    event, officers will generally default to their locally prepared
    communications plans for interoperability.
        Local emergency communications plans often call for the exchange of
    communications devices between agencies, the setting up of shared
    dispatch and command centers to facilitate information exchange, the
    designation of common ``hailing'' channels, the sharing of re-
    designated radio channels for various types of emergency communications
    traffic, the use of pre-planned and/or pre-staged ``patching''
    facilities that can be used to cross-connect radio traffic, and the use
    of ``cached'' communications devices which are held specifically for
    distribution during emergencies.

                         WIRELESS COMMUNICATION PROGRAM

        Question. Are DOJ component operations and maintenance budgets
    clearly defined and supported equitably amongst the components?
        Answer. DOJ component legacy communications systems operations and
    maintenance (O&M) requirements are funded through budget requests
    submitted to the WMO for inclusion in the overall Law Enforcement
    Wireless Communications (LEWC) budget submission. Component O&M budget
    requests are clearly delineated by specific categories. The WMO
    centrally manages the LEWC account and provides funding allotments to
    the Department's law enforcement components which are responsible for
    the O&M of legacy systems. O&M allotments are dispersed annually
    (through reimbursable agreements) by the WMO once appropriations have
    been received. If operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) or if
    annual appropriations have not been received, the components will
    receive incremental allotments based on the availability of funds.
        Question. Are resources allocated effectively in and amongst the
    DOJ WMO and the respective components? Are the components receiving
    adequate support considering the operational size and expense of the
    WMO?
        Answer. Yes. The concept of creating a centralized program
    management office was to save on overhead and redundant expenses. The
    centralized WMO was conceived of and approved by Appropriations staff.
    We believe that significant overhead cost savings (nearly $35 million)
    have been realized over the past four years.
        The WMO currently employs 19 Government and 39 contractor staff
    across the nation in support of Law Enforcement Wireless Communications
    (LEWC) to include the modernized Integrated Wireless Network (IWN)
    design, deployment, operations and maintenance (O&M). Of the numbers
    listed above, 1 government (Bothell, WA) and 13 contractor personnel
    (9--Seattle/Spokane 4--San Diego) support O&M and the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) consolidated dispatch center for the modernized
    program.
        Question. If the WMO currently invests a large portion of its
    budget into the Seattle Blaine IWN pilot isn't that investment at the
    expense of thousands of failing antenna sites elsewhere? Who makes
    these investment decisions about priorities?
        Answer. The Department and the components manage approximately
    4,400 radio sites across the country. While a number of these sites are
    aged and require upgrades, they are not all in danger of failure. In
    fiscal year 2007, 74 percent of the Law Enforcement Wireless
    Communications account appropriation was directed to the components for
    legacy O&M and special requests. For fiscal year 2008 the amount
    directed to the components increased to 80 percent with additional
    reallocations pending.
        A program of this size and scope requires a solid foundation for
    moving forward. At the direction of Congress, we have invested a
    significant amount of time and effort to conduct a full and open
    procurement and to plan for a multi-year, nationwide system development
    and deployment program that efficiently leverages our existing base of
    legacy technologies while ensuring we continue to support ongoing law
    enforcement communications needs. While at the same time we must manage
    the major risks inherent within a large scale communications system
    deployment/conversion program.
        The WMO reports to the Department's Chief Information Officer who
    is ultimately responsible for LEWC investment decisions. However, the
    components have significant input to the investment decisions through
    their wireless offices and through their CIOs. These decisions are made
    with full visibility to the components. In addition, LEWC investment
    priorities are established and reviewed by the Wireless Communications
    Board (WCB) which is comprised by senior executives from each of our
    components. The WCB evaluates the priorities established by each of the
    component agencies and identifies the recipient based on a consensus of
    what is in the best interest of the component agencies and what systems
    are most at risk of jeopardizing agent safety.
        The funding allocated in support of the Seattle Blaine IWN pilot
    and Pacific Northwest Expansion has tested and validated the business
    goals and objectives necessary to move the program forward from a
    design, implementation, and operations standpoint. The Seattle Blaine
    IWN pilot proved the viability (and certain limitations) of the IWN
    design, technology, site consolidation, site build-out, and
    implementation process. Significant improvements in communications
    capabilities and system efficiencies were realized; with dramatic
    reductions in spectrum resources (50 percent reduction) and facilities
    (60 percent reduction) needed to meet law enforcement operational
    requirements. Additionally all of our law enforcement components now
    have the same (and larger) communications coverage ``footprint'' across
    the region.
        The Seattle Blaine pilot has been successful and further geographic
    expansion and system enhancements are regularly requested by the local
    users. However, due to inadequate funding, we have not been able to
    fully support such requests. The Seattle Blaine pilot, along with the
    25 Cities Program, has proven the effectiveness of federal, state, and
    local interoperability through the successful execution of many mission
    critical operations.
        Question. It has come to the Committees attention that the
    components have identified this concern and requested reallocation of
    resources repeatedly. Provide all of the requests for reallocation of
    resources in this program and the outcome of those requests.
        Answer. The WMO receives hundreds of funding requests each year
    from the components. Funding them all is not possible due to limited
    resources. Recognizing that the components receive 74 percent and 80
    percent respectively of the WMO budget for O&M and special projects,
    the Department is very judicious in funding all component requests.
    Mindful of the congressional language supporting consolidation of
    narrowband activities within DOJ, a careful balance is struck between
    funding plans for the future and continuing to invest in component-
    specific systems. In July 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives,
    Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee Report on Fiscal Year 1999
    Appropriations Bill stated,

        ``The Committee supports the consolidation of this activity under
    the Attorney General, as such a consolidation will ensure maximum
    coordination and system compatibility . . . Given the scale of the
    investment that may be required, the Committee believes that any
    Department of Justice narrowband conversion initiatives must be based a
    comprehensive strategy which achieves the following goals: (1)
    increased spectrum efficiency; (2) interoperability among all
    Department components, as well as Federal law enforcement agencies; and
    (3) maximized efficiencies and savings through shared infrastructure
    and common procurement strategies. The Committee is concerned that
    currently, the Department of Justice lacks such a [consolidation]
    strategy. In fact, the current approach appears to be fragmented and
    agency-driven, emphasizing individual agency requirements or
    initiatives, which may or may not accomplish the goals outlined above
    in the most strategic, and efficient manner. Therefore, the Committee
    intends that this critical initiative be coordinated and implemented by
    the Department, rather than through individual DOJ components.''

        Working with the components the Department has developed a strategy
    that satisfies the goals identified by Congress and demonstrated in the
    IWN Seattle Pilot/Pacific Northwest Expansion and Department
    procurement strategies. In Seattle and the surrounding area the
    Department has realized a 50 percent reduction in spectrum and a 60
    percent reduction in facilities. These savings have been factored into
    our overall cost model. The Department has also awarded a Systems
    Integration contract to General Dynamics to implement the program
    across the nation. Additionally contracts that facilitate bulk
    purchases of subscriber equipment (hand sets) have been extremely
    beneficial in achieving savings to the government.
        Question. Why is the WMO program management budget two times
    greater than the components budgets combined?
        Answer. We do not know the source of the Component budgets you
    refer to, but we believe a simple match of respective budgets results
    in an ``apples to oranges'' comparison. The WMO undertakes a number of
    network management and financial management functions on behalf of the
    Components, freeing them of the need to perform these tasks. In
    addition, the scope of WMO management responsibility spans across all
    the Components--something for which no individual Component has a
    similar function.
        DOJ was tasked to establish a WMO to consolidate four separate and
    individually run Component wireless programs, realize operating
    synergies, and then plan and direct the design, development and
    implementation of a multi-billion dollar and multi-year advanced
    network solution. If one compares the WMO's size to other program
    management offices at other agencies, the WMO is too small to manage
    the nationwide deployment effort of a new advanced solution. Because of
    a lack of funding, the modernization effort is not moving forward at
    the previously planned pace. The tasks done by the WMO are very
    different from the tasks of the components.
        The LEWC account provides a funding vehicle to manage all DOJ
    tactical wireless communications through a single established program
    management office necessary to support a large, nationwide
    implementation program. This office is charged with planning,
    implementing, and sustaining a system that replaces the existing
    tactical communications services operated by DOJ components in fifty
    states. In addition, WMO centrally manages funding allotments to the
    Department's law enforcement components for the O&M of Legacy
    Communications Systems. The LEWC Joint Program Office (WMO) currently
    employs 19 Government and 39 contractor staff in support of the
    modernization design, deployment, operations and maintenance. The
    component agencies have radio communication offices focused on current
    mission operations and technical support rather than the IWN
    modernization.
        The components receive the majority of the Law Enforcement Wireless
    Communications Appropriation. In fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008,
    this represented 74 percent and 80 percent of the funding,
    respectively.
        Question. This budget request primarily funds O&M for TWO radio
    systems in San Diego and Seattle at the expense of all others. Is it
    true that the WMO currently employs more full time employees and
    contractors than three of the four components in support of Land Mobile
    Radio? What is the justification for this inequity that leaves the
    smaller component staff managing nationwide radio programs with a
    fraction of the budget and human resources the WMO uses to manage 2?
        Answer. We're not sure of the headcount numbers you refer to, but
    we believe this may be another case of comparing very different
    organizations, responsibilities, and scope of operations. The
    Department indeed manages shared radio systems in San Diego and
    Seattle. However, the LEWC budget does more than fund two radio
    systems. In San Diego and Imperial County, CA there are over 7,800 DOJ
    and DHS radios affiliated with the system. In the Seattle/Pacific
    Northwest system there are approximately 1,000 radios representing DHS,
    DOJ, Treasury, and Commerce users. These systems accommodate a far
    greater number of users and have a larger footprint than individual
    component systems that serve only the needs of the specific component.
    In an effort to consolidate operations, the Department has worked with
    the FBI and USMS to transition the USMS onto the FBI systems around the
    country. This effort is 90 percent complete and provides the USMS with
    enhanced coverage. The remaining components have much smaller systems
    although deployed around the nation and use different O&M approaches
    (contracting out or using government FTE).
        It is not accurate to compare the WMO to the component offices as
    they have different missions. Per Congressional guidance, DOJ is trying
    to streamline maintenance through a central office. Until the
    modernized solution is rolled out, it is unfair to compare functions of
    one office to the functions of the mission office. If funding is not
    going to be provided to modernize the radios, then the role of the WMO
    should be re-examined. Additionally, many (14) of the contractors in
    the WMO are working directly in the field for the components,
    especially in San Diego and Seattle.
        The components receive the majority of the Law Enforcement Wireless
    Communications Appropriation. In fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
    this represented 74 percent and 80 percent respectively. With the funds
    remaining, the WMO pays personnel salaries and benefits, conducts
    modernization planning, pays O&M for the Pacific Northwest and San
    Diego systems, pays NTIA fees, and manages the 25 Cities program and
    continues the expansion efforts in the Pacific Northwest. In addition,
    all funding for special events like the political conventions and the
    Super Bowl come from the LEWC account.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget request, and past budget requests,
    includes much more than O&M for two radio systems. The fiscal year 2009
    President's budget request totals $121,651,000, which continues support
    of all component legacy systems and operations across the country,
    including but not limited to, San Diego and Seattle. As important, the
    fiscal year 2009 budget request has a program increase of $43 million
    to (1) begin implementing IWN in the DC metropolitan area and (2) for
    equipment replacement to address high priority component equipment
    needs.
        Question. Do the components have adequate LAND Mobile Radio
    communications capability to carry out their core missions?
        Answer. The components are carrying out core missions with existing
    legacy LMR equipment. However, this capability is limited by the age of
    their legacy communications systems. As cited in the March 2007 DOJ
    Office of the Inspector General Report, the majority of the
    Department's LMR communications systems are over 10 years old and
    function in an analog mode rather than a digital mode, which means they
    have limited functionality and diminished voice communications quality.
    Most DOJ legacy radio systems: Are not narrowband compliant; do not
    provide appropriate encryption to protect sensitive information; are no
    longer supported by the manufacturer; provide little to no
    interoperability with any other agencies; and cannot facilitate
    wireless data transfers.
        Question. Are current communications systems in compliance with
    presidential narrow band mandates and/or NIST security standards?
        Answer. No. The DOJ Inspector General's report on IWN from March of
    2007 estimated that 21 percent of the Department's radios are compliant
    with presidential narrowband mandates and 5 percent are capable of
    meeting NIST security guidelines. Since March of 2007, the limited
    funds have been prudently used to improve narrowband compliance to 30
    percent and NIST security compliance to 15 percent.
        Question. The 2007 IWN OIG audit pointed out, the majority of DOJ
    Land Mobile Radio Infrastructure is antiquated and failing. Does DOJ
    have radio communications operability?
        Answer. DOJ radio communications capability is limited by the
    composition of the DOJ component legacy communications systems. The
    Department's LMR communications systems currently in use are over 10
    years old and function in an analog mode rather than a digital mode,
    which means they have limited functionality and diminished voice
    communications quality. Additional legacy operability challenges faced
    by components include; federal-to-federal, and federal-to-state
    interoperability, and lack of support for over the air re-keying (OTAR)
    security encryption standards. The components have basic capabilities,
    but do need a modernized system to support their needs.
        Question. What percentage of DOJ users are not NIST security
    standard compliant? Be specific.
        Answer. Currently 86 percent of ATF radios, 91 percent of DEA
    radios and 84 percent of FBI radios are not compliant with NIST
    security standards. These percentages reflect an improvement since the
    DOJ OIG report of March 2007 which reported 100 percent of ATF and DEA
    radios and 93 percent of FBI radios were not compliant. Updated figures
    for the U.S. Marshals Service are not available but it is safe to
    assume that their percentages are similar to the other components. DOJ
    has consistently reported our lack of compliance in testimony and in
    staff briefings.
        Question. Does this mean Federal Agents enforcing federal law and
    providing domestic security are using encryption that has been
    compromised and should not considered secure?
        Answer. Yes. Our legacy wireless systems employ encryption
    technology that is out-dated and could be subject to compromise.
        Question. How do DOJ communications capabilities compare to DHS?
        Answer. This is a very complicated question and the Department
    encourages you to ask Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about their
    capabilities. At a high operational level, both agencies face similar
    mission challenges. However, there is a significant difference in how
    the two Departments manage their respective wireless programs. Most
    notably, DHS funding for its radio programs is not centrally managed by
    a WMO as done at DOJ. Rather, DHS law enforcement components get their
    radios funded at the component level, which would typically lead to the
    individual (and possibly separate) prioritization of investment
    decisions (something that we were tasked by Congress to remedy with the
    establishment of our WMO).
        It is not clear what type of inter-operability exists between their
    components and with state and locals. The modernized IWN is being
    designed to allow for inter-connectivity between DOJ assets, DHS assets
    and local assets.
        Question. Is there a central dispatch or information center within
    DOJ?
        Answer. As it relates to radio dispatching, the answer is no. As
    part of the plans for the modernized system, we envision a central
    network operations center to manage the backhaul networks across the
    country and to serve as a focal point for support to the agents (and
    their support staff) in the field.
        Question. Does DHS have a higher level of operability than DOJ?
        Answer. Yes. Many of the DHS components have modernized their radio
    systems in the past five years. We cannot assess how well coordinated
    or financially effective these investments have been. However, the
    average age of their typical radio unit is much lower than the typical
    DOJ radio.
        Question. Is the IWN Seattle Blaine pilot a feasible model for the
    future? Is trunking technology a requirement for DOJ?
        Answer. The Seattle Blaine pilot is a feasible model for major
    metropolitan areas with high federal agent user densities. Areas of
    high user densities typically coincide with scarcity of spectrum
    resources. While the relative spectral efficiency of trunking radio
    technologies can be debated in remote or low-density rural areas, high
    user-density areas always benefit from the implementation of trunking
    technologies.
        A few design criteria from the Seattle Blaine pilot have been re-
    evaluated and probably would not be implemented nationwide. The
    criteria include radio tower site improvements and backhaul redundancy.
    While overall system reliability in a trunked system is improved,
    nationwide implementation may be too costly. Selective application of
    redundancy at the most vulnerable system nodes, and site improvements
    commensurate with the equipment being installed would be the two major
    deviations from the Seattle Blaine model.
        The differences in ease-of-use between conventional and trunking
    radio are substantial. The WMO continually receives positive feedback
    from users on the Seattle Blaine IWN system regarding usability and
    roaming capabilities. The use of trunking technologies is not an
    explicit stated requirement for IWN, however, we feel the minimal
    incremental cost (estimated to be 30 percent) is well worth the
    significant improvement in radio usability and roaming capabilities for
    many areas, especially in urban settings.
        Question. Given the lack of support from OMB for the DOJ mission
    can the Department continue to spend $200 million and seven years
    building each radio system throughout the country?
        Answer. Through the IWN program, the DOJ will provision and
    maintain a range of secure and reliable wireless communications
    services, including voice, data and multimedia services that support
    counterterrorism, counterintelligence, law enforcement and emergency
    response operations. The DOJ IWN strategy will be implemented over a
    six year period in a series of overlapping phases. The planned six-
    year, four phase upgrade and replacement of legacy communications
    systems will include regional design and deployment of the new tactical
    communications systems and services focusing on urban centers. The cost
    summary for a six-year IWN deployment is approximately $200 million per
    year from 2009-2014.
        For fiscal year 2009, OMB was supportive of the Department's IWN
    program and approved a program increase of $43 million to address
    priority radio infrastructure needs. The Department intends to continue
    working with OMB in future budget cycles to ensure that all
    Departmental priorities, including IWN, are discussed and addressed.
        Question. To what degree do DOJ operational personnel and technical
    program managers influence the direction and decisions of the WMO?
        Answer. Operational and program management personnel within each
    component agency formulate requirements and staff those requirements
    through the respective management chains. Senior managers from each
    agency participate equally in the DOJ Wireless Communications Board
    (WCB). All major system deployment decisions are vetted through the
    WCB. The WMO does not act unilaterally, and in fact takes all major
    program direction from the WCB, chaired by the DOJ CIO Mr. Hitch.
        Question. Is there adequate input from the agents in need of the
    resource?
        Answer. The component agency headquarter staffs coordinate with
    their field agents in identifying and defining IWN requirements to the
    WMO. However, WMO personnel also meet quarterly with local agents using
    IWN to discuss its status, lessons learned, and operational
    requirements. When in the field and opportunities arise, the WMO meets
    as often as possible with current and future IWN users. Also, in
    September 2007, the WMO hosted the first DOJ Wireless Summit attended
    by over 100 DOJ and component agency personnel from across the country,
    ranging from management to technical staff to field agents, to discuss
    trends in wireless technology, DOJ wireless initiatives, and the future
    of the IWN architecture and deployment. The summit was a success in
    accomplishing its objectives with future summits highly endorsed by the
    component agencies.
        Question. Is there, or should there be operational oversight/
    leadership at the WMO?
        Answer. The Department's Investment Review Board (DIRB) provides
    oversight of the WMO's investment recommendations/decisions. The DIRB
    is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General. In addition, the WMO
    executes the decisions from the Department CIO and Wireless
    Communications Board (WCB) based on operational priorities as defined
    by the component agencies and DOJ management. The WMO welcomes
    participation from the operational users; however, there needs to be
    one executive oversight body responsible for looking at the set of
    requirements as a whole and providing direction on what is in the best
    interest of the Department. The WCB is tasked with assessing
    Department-wide needs and requirements and making recommendations
    accordingly.
        Question. How many operational personnel are currently employed by
    the WMO?
        Answer. The WMO employs personnel with backgrounds in program
    management, budgeting, procurement, and planning. It is not designed to
    be operational, but it is designed to rely on the components for
    operational input. The WMO staff includes personnel previously employed
    by the FBI, DEA, DOD, military, and private industry who experience
    supporting operations. The WMO is an integrated program office covering
    all the disciplines required to support a large, nationwide
    implementation program.
        Question. Beyond Component surveys what operational oversight of
    the WMO exists?
        Answer. The WMO holds a project team meeting on a monthly basis to
    brief status of all project activities. The components send
    representatives to this meeting to provide insight as well as oversight
    on WMO progress. The WMO team reports directly to the Deputy CIO who
    has day-to-day oversight responsibilities. In addition, the WMO has
    been subjected to numerous audits from internal and external groups.
        Question. What law enforcement, operational or tactical
    communications experience do the employees of the WMO have?
        Answer. The WMO is tasked with developing a secure wireless,
    nationwide tactical communications network that addresses federal law
    enforcement requirements to communicate internal to and across
    agencies, allow interoperability with state and local law enforcement
    partners, and meet spectrum mandates and NIST security guidelines. To
    achieve this task the WMO actively solicits input from its law
    enforcement components and agents on requirements and operational
    missions. The WMO is staffed with the requisite experience to oversee
    and maintain accountability for the design and implementation of a
    system of systems that will meet the requirements of, and allow the law
    enforcement agents and agencies to accomplish mission operations.
        The WMO has recruited staff from the law enforcement components and
    the military that have many years of direct experience with component
    (FBI/DEA) radio communications to include engineering, operations and
    spectrum management. In addition the WMO has looked outside the
    Department to DOD, other Departments and industry for certified Project
    Managers, staff with wireless industry and large scale contracting
    experience. The WMO also has an Administrative and Financial Staff led
    by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and former auditor to formulate
    budget strategies and maintain an accurate accounting structure, as
    well as enhance internal controls. The staff also includes an expert in
    the field of security certification and accreditation to ensure systems
    are protected to the maximum extent possible. A contracting officer is
    also assigned to the WMO to assist the program in executing on its
    acquisition strategies and procurement requirements.
        Question. Do components have adequate human resources to progress
    into the next generation of radio communications?
        Answer. The components are fully aware of the evolutionary changes
    taking place in the tactical communications marketplace. Since this
    will be a consolidated system, there will necessarily be changes in
    business rules and how systems are managed. All of the specific skill
    sets are not known at this point, but the WMO will provide training for
    component staff in new technologies as deployed. In the Seattle model,
    the WMO has hosted infrastructure training for technical staffs as well
    as subscriber training for the Agents.
        One of the reasons for doing a major procurement with a large
    systems integrator was to leverage the knowledge of the contractor
    employees as we attempt to build the next generation of radios.
    Improvements in satellite and data transmission will impact the radios
    of the future, and therefore the design must look beyond current
    capabilities.
        Question. What efforts are being made to leverage existing
    resources such as JUTNET, other governmental resources, and further
    consolidation?
        Answer. We have evaluated Justice Unified Telecommunications
    Network's (JUTNET) capabilities and assessed the potential to leverage
    those capabilities. Unfortunately, at this time, there is little
    potential for JUTNET to satisfy the needs of our wireless networks.
    JUTNET is currently a data communications system and is not designed to
    support the voice requirements that would be demanded by our wireless
    systems. Consequently, the general scope of JUTNET and the
    communications needs of the modernized IWN are different and lack
    suitable amounts of commonality to justify re-engineering or otherwise
    modifying JUTNET. A major strategic goal of the Department's CIO is to
    effectively leverage our enterprise investments to achieve synergies
    across DOJ. As JUTNET evolves to support voice services, we will work
    closely with that management team to ensure we can further consolidate
    and share IT infrastructure to achieve operations and cost synergies.
        To take advantage of possible cost savings while satisfying our
    operational requirements, the WMO is working with our DEA component to
    leverage a DEA-recommended Department of Defense network for
    communications backhaul. The solution is being implemented in the Gulf
    Coast region. The WMO also works with other Federal partners and, State
    and Locals to leverage opportunities for sharing communications
    backhaul and facilities where possible.
        The San Diego and Seattle systems are fully consolidated and shared
    across the components. Our updated IWN Plan ($1.23 billion versus $2+
    billion) emphasizes and requires re-use of existing radio sites to
    reduce costs. In the past, one component would pay rent across the
    street from another component's rented radio site on a downtown
    skyscraper. The systems use, for example, a single building, antenna
    system, circuit for connectivity, site license, spectrum and staff
    resources. With this consolidation of former DOJ component assets in
    San Diego and Seattle into a single consolidated ``system of systems''
    it is far more reliable, requires fewer radio sites and less O&M is
    needed to maintain single systems. Wireline circuits are now installed
    for the benefit of all DOJ components and not the exclusive use of one.
        Question. Do current cost models and modular budgets adequately
    address components radio communications requirements? How are radios
    funded for the hundreds of state and local task force agents?
        Answer. At the current funding level for LEWC, we believe that the
    funding level for the old legacy systems and handsets is absolutely
    inadequate. For all the reasons stated in the questions, the old
    systems and handsets are at the end of their useful life and
    ``throwing'' additional money at these obsolete systems is not a long
    term (or even intermediate term) strategy. We are rapidly approaching
    the time when we will not be able to find the replacement parts and
    service inventory necessary to maintain these networks. A new, more
    modern, more secure and interoperable solution is needed. The modular
    budgets spread the existing funding around in an equitable manner, but
    the funding does not meet the needs of the agents in the field.
        The WMO is not responsible nor is it funded to provide radios to
    task force officers at the state and local level. However, when
    requests for task force support are given a high priority by the
    submitting component and the WCB approves, we try to fund radios for
    use by the task force officers. If we had a modernized system, the
    locally procured (usually with federal grant dollars) and locally
    maintained handsets for the locals could work on the federal network
    (certain channels).

                           PAY AND BENEFITS OVERSEAS

        Question. What efforts has the Department of Justice taken to
    ensure retention of its best and brightest, particularly in the
    enforcement agencies out in the field and those agents and employees
    working outside the United States?
        Answer. While Department of Justice law enforcement officials
    working outside the United States may be eligible for certain
    additional pay or benefits based on the location, the retention
    incentives available to those employees are the same as the incentives
    available to those located in the United States.
        The FBI continues to use the authorities it received in the 2005
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, some of which expire at the end of
    2009, to better compete with private industry and improve attrition
    rates. These authorities include recruitment, relocation, and retention
    incentives, student loan repayment, and the University Education
    Program. Recruitment bonuses allow the FBI to competitively recruit
    employees who possess special qualifications for hard-to-fill FBI
    positions, relocation bonuses increase the number of employees
    interested in hard-to-fill positions within the FBI by, in effect,
    reducing the employee's relocation costs, and retention allowances are
    used to retain current employees who possess high-level or unique
    qualifications or who fill critical FBI needs. Retention allowances may
    be provided on either an individual or group basis to help the FBI
    retain certain employees or categories of employees, such as
    intelligence analysts and police officers.
        The FBI has also used education benefits to improve the quality and
    job satisfaction of our workforce. For example, in order to improve our
    recruitment and retention of Intelligence Analysts, the FBI repaid 359
    student loans for these employees in fiscal year 2007. The FBI has also
    used the University Education Program to fund tuition expenses for
    current employees seeking to obtain certifications and academic
    degrees, approving payments for 679 participants in fiscal year 2008.
        Question. Is danger pay provided to agents and DOJ employees
    actively working along the Southwest Border?
        Answer. The FBI's Legal Attache (Legat) office in Mexico maintains
    a presence in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey, but does not
    maintain a permanent presence along the Southwest Border. Currently,
    neither FBI employees assigned to the Mexico City Legat nor those
    assigned in the United States near the Southwest Border are afforded
    danger pay. It is the FBI's understanding that DEA personnel working in
    Mexico have been eligible to receive a danger pay allowance of 15
    percent of basic pay since approximately 1991. In April 2008 the FBI's
    Mexico City Legat asked FBI Headquarters to consider affording danger
    pay to all FBI personnel in Mexico based on the hostile environment in
    Mexico, including threats from organized crime fugitives, rebels, and
    terrorist groups, as well as street and residential crimes. This
    request is under review.
        Question. How many computer databases with similar information do
    we need before we have too many?
        Answer. Proper utilization of taxpayer funds is important and
    duplicative government programs should be avoided, however, the DOJ
    systems are not duplicative with other components/agencies.
        Question. The Department has continually had problems maintaining
    the jurisdictional integrity of the agencies it oversees. Namely the
    ATF and the FBI both have and claim jurisdiction over explosive
    incidents.
        Please explain how having yet another agency involved in explosive
    incidents is helpful and productive to preventing and solving a
    terrorist incident?
        Answer. The Attorney General, in coordination with the Department
    of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others, is currently
    developing the implementation plan as requested by HSPD 19. While the
    plan has not been fully developed yet, it will address the Senate's
    concerns over terrorism jurisdiction and incident management.
    Additionally, on July 8, 2008, the Director of FBI and the Acting
    Director of ATF signed a Memorandum of Understanding on ATF/FBI
    Protocols for Response to Explosives-related Incidents which delineates
    the roles of each agency when responding to bombing and explosives
    related incidents. The Department intends to make sure the HSPD 19
    implementation plan clearly identifies core Department responsibilities
    so that the involvement of another agency does not compromise our
    priorities.
        Question. If ATF and FBI have trouble sharing this jurisdiction
    within the Department how will the Federal Government manage yet
    another?
        Answer. HSPD 19, when fully developed and implemented, will ensure
    that all relevant parties within the Federal Government understand
    their role in explosive events relating to terrorist bombing incidents
    response. The policy will delineate who has jurisdictional control and
    the roles of the respective agencies.
        Question. Be specific in how these events will be managed if both
    justice agencies and the approximately 22 DHS agencies show up?
        Answer. HSPD 19, when fully developed and implemented, will ensure
    that all relevant parties within the Federal Government understand
    their role in explosive events relating to terrorist bombing incidents
    response. The policy will delineate who has jurisdictional control and
    the roles of the respective agencies. Also, DHS' Office of Bombing
    Prevention is not an operational response organization. The Department
    has the responsibility for operational response. We are committed to
    ensuring this important delineation. Therefore, response from a third
    party is not expected to be an issue.
        Question. What will the decision process be if all three respond to
    an incident? Be specific.
        Answer. The Department is working with the White House and DHS to
    develop the implementation plan for HSPD 19. When completed, the lines
    of authority will be clear as to who will have the lead in addressing
    different types of bombing incidents. At this point and time it is not
    possible to be overly specific about the decision process if all three
    organizations respond. For further explanation, see the answer to the
    next question. However, the Department is sensitive to and fully
    engaged on this issue with the White House and DHS to ensure our
    interests are considered and protected as the implementation plan for
    HSPD 19 is being developed.
        Question. Identify the role of each in an example when at one
    incident ATF is the lead, another incident when FBI is the lead and yet
    another incident when DHS is the lead?
        Answer. On July 8, 2008, the Director of FBI and the Acting
    Director of ATF signed a Memorandum of Understanding on ATF/FBI
    Protocols for Response to Explosives-related Incidents which delineates
    the roles of each agency when responding to bombing and explosives
    related incidents. DHS' Office of Bombing Prevention is not an
    operational response organization. DOJ has the responsibility for
    operational response. Therefore, the response from a third agency
    should not be an issue. However, once HSPD 19 is fully implemented, the
    lines of authority will be reflected as to who will have the lead in
    addressing different types of terrorist related bombing incidents.
        Question. If the lines of authority are unclear who will the State
    and locals call for assistance?
        Answer. The Department continues to work with the White House and
    DHS to ensure that the HSPD 19 implementation plan will ensure that
    clearly defines the lines of authority for differing terrorist related
    bombing incidents are clearly defined. Once that policy is fully
    implemented state and local officials will know which agency to contact
    for assistance during an incident.
        Question. Why are we paying 2 federal agencies to do research on
    explosives?
        Answer. The role of explosives research varies by agency. While it
    is important to ensure the proper expenditure of taxpayer funds and
    avoid duplication of efforts it may not be possible for a single agency
    to do the entirety of explosives research. Within the Department the
    FBI operates a number of explosives research programs at Quantico as
    well as at Redstone that address areas such as render safe techniques
    and bomb disposal. ATF on the other hand manages research projects and
    programs such as the National Center for Explosives Training and
    Research (NCETR) as well as post-blast research intended to foster ATFs
    abilities and techniques for post-blast investigations. The Department,
    however, is unable to comment on the program activities of DHS and any
    research activities that might be underway there.
        Question. Should we transfer this authority to the Department of
    Homeland Security since it seems to fit their mission statement? Be
    specific.
        Answer. No. The Department continues to have legitimate reasons for
    pursuing explosives research. ATF's research in explosives, for
    example, is vital to the accomplishment of their mandate. Such research
    not only benefits ATF in addressing explosives incidents but also
    enables them to better train state and local organizations as well as
    the U.S. military in Iraq. It also provides important data that is
    regularly used in ATF's investigative proceedings. The FBI continues
    their focus on the development of diagnostic and render safe
    technologies and tools. The FBI participates with ATF as active members
    in the DOD Technical Support Working Group (TSWG).
        Question. Do not agree on the information given out over the secure
    network? Do not agree on the terrorist explosive tactics? Do not agree
    on the proper response and handling by the state and locals?
        Answer. Please provide further clarification as to what this
    question asks.
        Question. Homeland Security is going to develop multi-
    jurisdictional improvised explosive devices security plans for high-
    risk jurisdictions. Isn't this something that the FBI should be using
    their JTTFs for?
        Answer. The Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are operational
    units, and are not responsible for developing comprehensive response
    plans. These plans include program areas outside the criminal
    investigation responsibilities of the JTTF. DHS is responsible for
    providing input for the National Response Framework, which outlines how
    the Nation manages response to terrorism incidents. In essence, the
    efforts of DHS mirror those that were previously performed by the DOJ
    National Domestic Preparedness Office, which was transferred to DHS in
    the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The JTTFs, in concert with other
    relevant elements of the Department of Justice, will work as
    appropriate to coordinate with the DHS.
        Question. Section 318 of the bill provides that the Secretary,
    shall--

        ``(1) evaluate and assess nonmilitary research, development,
    testing, and evaluation activities of the Federal Government relating
    to the detection and prevention of, protection against, and response to
    explosive attacks within the United States; and
        ``(2) make recommendations for enhancing coordination of the
    research, development, testing, and evaluation activities described in
    paragraph (1).''

        Does the Department of Justice believe that this oversight and
    assistance from the Homeland is necessary?
        Answer. The Department of Justice has not taken an official
    position on the Bill. Therefore, we cannot answer this question at this
    time.
        Question. What expertise does the Department of Homeland Security
    have that would give them the expertise to evaluate and assess
    nonmilitary research, development, testing, and evaluation activities
    of the Justice Department relating to the detection and prevention of,
    protection against, and response to explosive attacks within the United
    States?
        Answer. The Department of Justice believes it would be
    inappropriate to comment on the expertise of another federal agency.
    While multiple organizations across the Federal Government have
    programs to address this threat, the Department of Justice continues to
    work with all stakeholder agencies to avoid any redundancy or
    duplication of effort while best leveraging the unique expertise of
    each agency.
        Question. I am concerned to see the Department's position or lack
    thereof on IED training. It's only a matter of time before terrorists
    will begin detonating improvised explosive devices in the United
    States. The ATF and FBI are the premier experts in handling explosives
    and responding to an explosives incident, yet the Department of Justice
    is somehow ceding this jurisdiction to a fledgling agency that has
    endured embarrassing failure after failure.
        The Department of Homeland Security failed miserably in handling
    hurricane response, contracting Coast Guard ships that aren't
    seaworthy, the virtual fence, baggage-screening systems, the biometric
    entry-exit tracking system, and now Justice leadership has quietly
    watch the newly created DHS Office of Bombing Prevention begin seeping
    into its explosives jurisdiction. The Department of Homeland Security
    has its hands full with the border, among other problems. I would
    prefer the world's best and most experienced professionals in the ATF
    and FBI handle explosive prevention and training.
        Why has the Department idly sat by as the Office of Bombing
    Prevention has grown?
        Answer. By no means is the Department sitting idly on this issue.
    In fact, we The Department continue to train State, local, federal and
    international partners on render safe, post blast, disposal, prevention
    and detection. Training is an important component in ensuring a
    successful defense against IEDs. Facilities like the National Center
    for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) will continue the
    Department's efforts in this important component. The Department is not
    aware of DHS' specific IED training curriculum and cannot comment
    specifically on that but we are working with the White House and DHS to
    make sure our interests are protected.
        Question. The establishment of the Office for Bombing Prevention,
    is to address terrorist explosive threats, and for other purposes. This
    proposal contains language that would provide yet another computer
    database that would provide ``a secure information sharing system that
    allows the sharing of critical information relating to terrorist
    explosive attack tactics, techniques, and procedures.''
        Why is it necessary to create yet another explosives data base?
        Answer. ATF's Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS) is a case
    management system used by federal, State, and local agencies
    investigating arsons, bombings, and other explosives incidents. The
    system provides law enforcement and fire service officials with access
    to information collected in ATF's U.S. Bomb Data Center (USBDC), the
    repository for all domestic bombing and arson incidents.
        To avoid duplication of effort and allow more efficient use of
    Department resources, the FBI no longer tracks domestic law enforcement
    bomb incident data. However, in support of its intelligence and counter
    terrorism missions, the FBI continues to collect bombing-related
    intelligence and information as well as requests for FBI assistance
    from other law enforcement agencies. This information is entered into
    the FBI's enterprise case management system; all data is eventually
    archived.
        EXPeRT is the FBI's document management system and electronic
    reference library for organizing and making available for future
    reference all the documents, reference material, photos, and other
    information related to explosives forensic examinations conducted by
    the FBI Lab Explosives Unit and the Department's Terrorist Explosive
    Device Analytical Center (TEDAC). EXPeRT is used within the FBI to
    share case data and reference material that support forensic exams and
    investigations, within TEDAC in the DOJ/DOD/INTEL Community to share
    information.
        DOJ's explosives data and information sharing systems (EXPeRT, and
    BATS) are now hosted, or in the alternative hyperlinked, on the Law
    Enforcement Online (LEO) portal.
        The DHS database referenced in proposed legislation already exists
    as the National Capability Database (NCAD). The DHS database collects
    and shares information about federal, state, and local law enforcement
    and emergency service capabilities including bomb squad, dive teams,
    explosives detection canine teams, and SWAT teams. State and local
    planners use NCAD to identify gaps and apply ``best practices'' to
    improve their security posture and develop multi-jurisdiction plans to
    respond to emergencies.
        Question. Is this an agency looking for a mission?
        Answer. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer
    of the United States with the duty to protect, deter, prevent and
    respond to terrorist attacks. Missions and functions of DHS are
    mandated in other laws. DOJ cannot address the missions currently
    assigned to the Department of Homeland Security.
        Question. Doesn't the Department already maintain 2 databases
    related to explosive incidents?
        Answer. ATF maintains the Department's sole database on arson and
    explosives incidents. ATF's Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS) is a case
    management system used by federal, State, and local agencies
    investigating arsons, bombings, and other explosives incidents. The
    system provides law enforcement and fire service officials with access
    to information collected in ATF's U.S. Bomb Data Center (USBDC), the
    repository for all domestic bombing incidents.
        To avoid duplication of effort and allow more efficient use of
    Department resources, the FBI no longer tracks domestic law enforcement
    bomb incident data. However, in support of its intelligence and counter
    terrorism missions, the FBI continues to collect bombing-related
    intelligence and information as well as requests for FBI assistance
    from other law enforcement agencies. This information is entered into
    the FBI's enterprise case management system; all data is eventually
    archived.
        EXPeRT is the FBI's document management system and electronic
    reference library for organizing and making available for future
    reference all the documents, reference material, photos, and other
    information related to explosives forensic examinations conducted by
    the FBI Lab Explosives Unit and the Department's Terrorist Explosive
    Device Analytical Center (TEDAC). EXPeRT is used within the FBI to
    share case data and reference material that support forensic exams and
    investigations, within TEDAC in the DOJ/DOD/INTEL Community to share
    information.
        DOJ's explosives data and information sharing systems (EXPeRT, and
    BATS) are now hosted, or in the alternative hyperlinked, on the Law
    Enforcement Online (LEO) portal.
        Question. Does the FBI or ATF system already do this? If not, why
    not?
        Answer. The DHS database referenced in proposed legislation already
    exists as the National Capability Database (NCAD). The DHS database
    collects and shares information about federal, state, and local law
    enforcement and emergency service capabilities including bomb squad,
    dive teams, explosives detection canine teams, and SWAT teams. State
    and local planners use NCAD to identify gaps and apply ``best
    practices'' to improve their security posture and develop multi-
    jurisdiction plans to respond to emergencies.
        Question. The Administration has indicated that one of its
    priorities surrounding the violence occurring along the SWB is to stop
    the flow of firearms into Mexico.
        While interdiction at the border is one way to deal with the
    problem, it seems that we also need to identify and disrupt the sources
    of these weapons.
        What is the Department doing to ensure that illegal firearms
    trafficking investigations are a priority along the SWB?
        Answer. Since 1972, because of its specific statutory authorities
    over firearms and explosives, ATF has played a strategic role in
    addressing violent crime along the Southwest Border--investigating
    criminal organizations that traffic firearms and explosives from the
    United States into Mexico and regulating Federal firearms licensees
    (FFL) and Federal explosives licensees (FELs) In April 2006, ATF
    created Project Gunrunner to enhance resources and focus efforts
    strategically on the Southwest Border to deny firearms, the ``tools of
    the trade,'' to criminal organizations in Mexico and along the border
    and to combat firearms related violence affecting communities on both
    side of the border.
        Intelligence gathered by ATF and other domestic Federal law
    enforcement entities strongly suggests that drug trafficking
    organizations have tasked their money laundering, distribution and
    transportation apparatuses--all of which reach across the border into
    the United States--to acquire firearms for illegal transfer back to
    Mexico for use in facilitating narco-trafficking and other criminal
    activities. ATF has developed an extremely effective real-time
    intelligence and evidence sharing network with the Mexican government.
    Given current circumstances and increasing volume, however, the system
    has been overwhelmed on both sides of the border.
        ATF is working with Mexican officials to increase their current
    usage of ATF's eTrace system. eTrace provides web-based access to ATF's
    Firearms Tracing System to allow law enforcement both domestically and
    internationally the ability to trace firearms seized in connection with
    criminal investigations. From fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2008, ATF
    has experienced more than a 100 percent increase in the number of trace
    requests from Mexico. With the deployment of eTrace to the nine
    consulates and the eventual implementation of Spanish eTrace, these
    numbers should continue to increase in the coming years. ATF's goal is
    to deploy eTrace software to all 31 states within the Republic of
    Mexico.
        Under Project Gunrunner, ATF has approximately 148 special agents
    dedicated to working firearms trafficking investigations on a full time
    basis and 56 industry operation investigators (IOI) responsible for
    conducting regulatory inspections of FFLs. ATF is also expanding its
    presence at the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) which serves as the
    central repository and ``clearinghouse'' for all weapons related
    intelligence collected and developed by ATF's field personnel and
    attaches in Mexico as well as by all other Federal, State and local law
    enforcement entities involved in narcotics interdiction and
    investigation along the U.S./Mexico border.
        ATF's industry operations strategic plan under Project Gunrunner
    includes an outreach component to both the firearms industry and law
    enforcement at the Federal, State, and local level. ATF's outreach
    includes firearms seminars conducted within the border region to
    educate the firearms industry concerning schemes associated with
    firearm trafficking. An integral part of this outreach is ATF's ``Don't
    Lie for the Other Guy'' public awareness campaign that educates both
    FFLs and the general public on their responsibilities as it relates to
    purchasing firearms. ATF also partners with the National Shooting
    Sports Foundation (NSSF) on a retailer education program that includes
    a public awareness component with public service messages warning
    persons not to purchase firearms for others. Plans are underway to take
    this initiative to several cities along the Southwest Border. ATF also
    continues to provide training on SWB gun trafficking to law enforcement
    agencies both in the United States and abroad.
        ATF is pursuing funding to establish firearm trafficking groups
    within each of its four border field divisions. The groups would be
    staffed by one group supervisor, eight special agents, two IOIs and one
    investigative analyst. These trafficking groups would be fully
    dedicated to firearm trafficking investigations. ATF is also seeking
    funding from the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
    Executive Office for five positions to expand ATF's Gun Desk at the El
    Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)--three intelligence research
    specialists (IRS), one investigative analyst and one full-time special
    agent. An additional four IRS positions have been requested to support
    the field divisions on the Southwest Border. The team at EPIC will
    coordinate with the IRSs in the field divisions to gather, analyze, and
    disseminate intelligence from ATF investigations targeting firearms
    trafficking cases that involve OCDETF CPOT- and RPOT-linked along the
    Southwest Border. The teams will also liaison with all participating
    agencies at EPIC to ensure intelligence gathered is coordinated.
        ATF is further collaborating with the Mexican government by
    deploying special agents to U.S. Consular offices in Mexico City and
    Monterrey, with additional deployments planned for Hermosillo, Baja
    California, Ciudad Juarez, and Tijuana in the near future, if funding
    is available. In this way, ATF will be able to work directly with
    Mexican counterparts, taking advantage of real-time intelligence that
    will benefit drug-related firearms trafficking investigations on both
    sides of the border. Intelligence sharing and transnational
    collaboration will provide valuable additional resources for ATF and
    its law enforcement partners. Those resources will be directed to
    identifying violent gangs and firearms traffickers that are also
    associated with OCDETF targets.
        Question. The Committee was under the impression that determining
    technology to be used in the field by bomb squads was part of the role
    for the Hazardous Devices School. How will this new initiative at the
    Dept of Homeland Security merge with the efforts of the FBI and the
    ATF?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is unable to comment on another
    Department's initiatives. The Hazardous Devices School (HDS) is not
    designed to serve as a research and development agency; however, the
    HDS is integral to the identification and transmission of operators'
    requirements and assists in the test and evaluation of emerging
    technologies developed through the efforts of the DOD Technical Support
    Working Group (TSWG) and others. TSWG is an interagency and
    international research and development organization focused on short
    term, quick turn around, fielding of equipment to meet operators'
    requirements. Both FBI and ATF, as well as OBP, are members of the TSWG
    and the National Science and Technology Council for Counter IED
    Research. As it stands, the Department continues to determine the
    technology best suited for bomb squad field use.
        Question. How much has the taxpayer already expended to create and
    maintain the current 2 systems?
        Answer. The cost to the taxpayers for the creation and maintenance
    of ATF's current database system is $13.8 million, with the first
    database being created in 1996.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell

        Question. What are the authorized and the current staffing levels
    for the Bureau of Prisons facilities within the Commonwealth of
    Kentucky, including FMC Lexington, USP Big Sandy, FCI Ashland, FCI
    Manchester, and USP McCreary?
        Answer.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              S&E Authorized    S&E Current
                                                   Level      Staffing Level
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FMC Lexington...........................             501             430
    USP Big Sandy...........................             385             337
    FCI Ashland.............................             289             258
    FCI Manchester..........................             308             273
    USP McCreary............................             376             330
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What are the current inmate-to-staff ratios at each of
    the Bureau of Prisons facilities within the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
    including FMC Lexington, USP Big Sandy, FCI Ashland, FCI Manchester,
    and USP McCreary?
        Answer. The current (June 5, 2008) inmate-to-staff ratios are as
    follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Ratio
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FMC Lexington...........................................        3.9 to 1
    USP Big Sandy...........................................        5.2 to 1
    FCI Ashland.............................................        6.0 to 1
    FCI Manchester..........................................        6.1 to 1
    USP McCreary \1\........................................        3.8 to 1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USP McCreary is transitioning from Medium Security to High Security
      Programming. The inmate population will continue to increase until the
      transition is complete and thereby increase the Inmate to Staff Ratio.

        Question. What are the authorized, optimal, and minimally-safe
    inmate-to-staff ratios at each of the Bureau of Prisons facilities
    within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including FMC Lexington, USP Big
    Sandy, FCI Ashland, FCI Manchester, and USP McCreary?
        Answer. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not have an optimal or
    minimally safe inmate to staff ratio, particularly for individual
    prisons. For fiscal year 2007, the BOP's inmate to staff ratio was to
    4.92 to 1, whereas 10 years ago, this ratio was at 3.57 to 1.
        Question. What steps is the Bureau of Prisons taking to increase
    security and safety at each of its facilities within the Commonwealth
    of Kentucky, including FMC Lexington, USP Big Sandy, FCI Ashland, FCI
    Manchester, and USP McCreary, regarding current staffing levels and
    inmate-to-staff ratios?
        Answer. Ensuring the safety and security of all facilities
    including the facilities in Kentucky is the highest priority of the
    Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The BOP ensures institution security through a
    combination of factors that include the classification of inmates based
    on risk factors; physical security features at BOP's institutions,
    including the structure of inmate living quarters, security
    technologies, and perimeter security measures; internal controls for
    inmate movement and accountability; direct staff supervision of
    inmates; and inmate involvement in correctional programs.
        The graduated classification system allows the BOP to assign an
    inmate to an institution in accordance with his or her likelihood of
    engaging in disruptive behavior. Inmates who require high levels of
    security are confined in higher-security facilities. Inmates who are
    able to function with relatively less supervision, without disrupting
    institution operations or threatening the safety of staff, other
    inmates, or the public, are confined in lower security level
    institutions.
        Architecture and security technology also help maintain the safety
    and security of BOP institutions, and the BOP continues to evaluate and
    add technological innovations to increase the physical security of
    facilities. To facilitate direct supervision of inmates, structural
    barriers between staff and inmates are minimized where possible, and
    staff offices are located near the areas where programs and services
    are delivered. Staff circulate freely and constantly through all areas
    of the institution, continually interacting with inmates. This promotes
    a more normalized environment within an institution and places staff in
    a better position to observe inmate behavior. Frequent and constructive
    interaction and communication between staff and inmates is critical to
    ensuring security, maintaining accountability, and managing inmate
    behavior. Staff are encouraged to talk with and be available to inmates
    and to be receptive to inmate concerns. Most institutions also rely on
    closed-circuit cameras and monitors to augment staff observation of
    inmates.
        Question. Why has the Bureau of Prisons facility at USP McCreary
    not staffed certain security towers while its stun/lethal fence
    remained incomplete and nonoperational? What steps to ensure the safety
    of staff, inmates, and the community has the Bureau taken while the
    towers remain unstaffed?
        Answer. The BOP is piloting a stun-lethal fence system at seven of
    its high security facilities. During the construction phase of these
    fence systems, Wardens have established adequate procedures to provide
    perimeter security. At USP McCreary, the Warden determined that while
    the stun-lethal fence is being installed, the certain towers will
    continue to be staffed to control access to and from the institution.
    In addition to this, perimeter patrols are being used for perimeter
    security. It should be noted that electrified fence systems have been
    in operation at several state correctional facilities for a number of
    years, and their perimeter security is very similar to those
    established at Bureau institutions.
        Question. On March 14, 2008, Bureau of Prisons Director Harley
    Lappin testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
    Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies. In response to a question from U.S. Representative Hal Rogers
    of Kentucky, Director Lappin described his concern about an increase in
    the severity of incidents of violence or disorder as the Bureau's
    inmate-to-staff ratio has worsened. He testified that the Bureau seeks
    to identify perpetrators and shift them into higher-security
    institutions. Given current staffing levels and inmate-to-staff ratios,
    what steps is the Bureau taking to ensure the security and safety of
    the staff, inmates, and community affiliated with the higher-security
    institutions that receive the violent inmates? What steps is the Bureau
    taking to retain and recruit staff at the higher-security institutions?
        Answer. As with the Department's answer to your previous question,
    ensuring the safety and security of staff, inmates, and the public is
    the highest priority of the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP ensures
    institution security through a combination of factors that include the
    classification of inmates based on risk factors; physical security
    features at our institutions, including the structure of inmate living
    quarters, security technologies, and perimeter security measures;
    internal controls for inmate movement and accountability; direct staff
    supervision of inmates; and inmate involvement in correctional
    programs.
        The graduated classification system allows the BOP to assign an
    inmate to an institution in accordance with his or her likelihood of
    engaging in disruptive behavior. Inmates who require high levels of
    security are confined in higher-security facilities. Inmates who are
    able to function with relatively less supervision, without disrupting
    institution operations or threatening the safety of staff, other
    inmates, or the public, are confined in lower security level
    institutions.
        Architecture and security technology also help maintain the safety
    and security of BOP institutions, and the BOP continues to evaluate and
    add technological innovations to increase the physical security of
    facilities. To facilitate direct supervision of inmates, structural
    barriers between staff and inmates are minimized where possible, and
    staff offices are located near the areas where programs and services
    are delivered. Staff circulate freely and constantly through all areas
    of the institution, continually interacting with inmates. This promotes
    a more normalized environment within an institution and places staff in
    a better position to observe inmate behavior. Frequent and constructive
    interaction and communication between staff and inmates is critical to
    ensuring security, maintaining accountability, and managing inmate
    behavior. Staffs are encouraged to talk with and be available to
    inmates and to be receptive to inmate concerns. Most institutions also
    rely on closed-circuit cameras and monitors to augment staff
    observation of inmates.
        BOP staffs are a key component to effective security and inmate
    management. Regardless of the specific discipline in which a staff
    member works, all BOP employees are ``correctional workers first.''
    This means that everyone is responsible for the security and good order
    of the institution. All staff are expected to be vigilant and attentive
    to inmate accountability and security issues, to respond to
    emergencies, and to maintain a proficiency in custodial and security
    matters, as well as in their particular job specialty. This approach
    allows the BOP to maximize emergency preparedness and to operate in the
    most cost-effective manner (with fewer correctional officers) and still
    maintain direct supervision of inmates.
        Finally, the BOP operates a broad variety of programs to keep
    inmates constructively occupied and provide them opportunities to learn
    important skills. Research has shown that keeping inmates productively
    involved in appropriate correctional programs and activities is
    critical to ensuring both a safe and secure prison and public safety.
    Correctional programs and activities reduce inmate idleness and the
    stresses associated with living in a prison, and these programs are
    important to public safety by assisting inmates to return to the
    community as productive, law-abiding citizens.
        Question. What steps is the Bureau of Prisons taking to increase
    security and safety at each of its facilities within the Commonwealth
    of Kentucky, including FMC Lexington, USP Big Sandy, FCI Ashland, FCI
    Manchester, and USP McCreary, regarding the transfer of non-English-
    speaking or bilingual violent inmates (including gang members) from
    other regions of the country and the attendant need to monitor inmate
    communications in foreign languages for threats to staff and
    institutional security?
        Answer. Ensuring the safety and security of our staff, inmates, and
    the public is the highest priority of the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP
    ensures institution security through a combination of factors that
    include the classification of inmates based on risk factors; physical
    security features at our institutions, including the structure of
    inmate living quarters, security technologies, and perimeter security
    measures; internal controls for inmate movement and accountability;
    direct staff supervision of inmates; and inmate involvement in
    correctional programs.
        During July 2007, the Bureau of Prisons established a Blanket
    Purchase Agreement to provide foreign language translation services for
    all institutions. The agreement incorporates language proficiency
    standards, security background requirements that the translators must
    meet, and an aggressive turnaround response time requirement
    (ordinarily two business days) for the contractor to complete the
    translation and return it to the Bureau of Prisons.
        At the same time guidance was provided to all institutions that all
    social communications (correspondence and telephone calls) for inmates
    meeting specific identified criteria, one of which was disruptive group
    affiliation or gang involvement, would be translated if written in
    foreign language. Social correspondence prepared in a foreign language
    by identified inmates would be held, translated and analyzed for
    intelligence value prior to mailing out of the institution. Incoming
    correspondence written in a foreign language would also be held,
    translated and analyzed for intelligence value prior being delivered to
    the inmate. Audio recordings of telephone calls are currently
    translated after the calls occur, but a new agreement currently under
    development will include the ability for simultaneous translation of
    inmate telephone calls.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee stands in recess until
    Wednesday, April 16, at 2 p.m., when we'll take testimony from
    the Director of the FBI.
        We thank the Director for coming and for his forthcoming
    statements and look forward to working with his team.
        This subcommittee stands in recess.
        Attorney General Mukasey. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. As the prerogative of the Chair, the
    subcommittee's officially recessed. We would thank the
    advocates from the Y for coming today.
        I'm going to ask my staff, and I'm sure the Shelby staff
    would join, so that they can have a brief conversation with you
    and bring you up to date on what our efforts will be, but we
    thank you for your advocacy and, most of all, we thank you for
    the hundred years of good work empowering women and fighting
    racism and bigotry in our society.
        God bless you.
        [Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., Thursday, April 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Wednesday,
    April 16.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2009

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room SD-124 Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Shelby, and Stevens.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER III, DIRECTOR

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. The Commerce, Justice, Science
    Subcommittee will come to order.
        There are many hearings going on right now. I know the
    hearing on the supplemental is wrapping up and we have a vote
    at 2:15. So, I know Senator Shelby is on his way, Director
    Mueller.
        I want to exercise the prerogative of the Chair and give my
    opening statement. By that time Senator Shelby will be here. We
    hope to hear your testimony, then we'll recess and then come
    back for questions and answers. But I think that there are five
    hearings on appropriations going on simultaneously. Here he is.
        Good afternoon, and welcome. Today, the Commerce, Justice,
    Science Subcommittee will hear from Director Robert Mueller,
    the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for its
    budget priorities for fiscal year 2009. We've had a very
    productive relationship with Director Mueller and his team and
    he can count on us to work with him.
        We regard this year as a year of transition. This time next
    year, we will have a new President and whatever we do with this
    year's budget for the FBI will be the operating budget for that
    President's first term.
        I want to make sure the FBI has the right resources to
    fulfill its mission, to fight terrorists, violent criminals,
    cyber crooks, and also predators on our children.
        The FBI has so many multiple roles, it truly is not J.
    Edgar Hoover's FBI anymore, and it isn't even Judge Webster's
    FBI anymore. It is a new modern FBI with multiple
    responsibilities, both as an intelligence and law enforcement
    agency, responsible for keeping 300 million people safe from
    terrorists, as well as, criminals.
        The President's budget request is $7.1 billion, a $450
    million increase above the 2008 passed omnibus. This will be a
    7 percent increase and it should help with funding for more
    special agents and more intelligence analysts.
        While we work to get the FBI the right resources, we also
    have to make sure that we have the best management practices.
    We know the FBI is hiring to meet our Nation's needs and we
    want to discuss with him the issues related to recruitment,
    retention, and training.
        In the area of counterterrorism, most increases in the FBI
    budget are in this category. We all agree this is a top
    priority. For counterterrorism, the budget proposes $3 billion,
    a $234 million increase above the 2008 omnibus.
    Counterterrorism is now 40 percent of the FBI's budget. This
    has been quite a transformation in the last 5 years.
        For intelligence, the budget proposes $1.4 billion, a $208
    million increase over 2008 and an 18 percent increase. I'm
    pleased that the FBI proposes major investments in intelligence
    gathering, fighting cyber crime, dealing with these issues
    related to weapons of mass destruction and improvised explosive
    devices (IEDs).
        At the same time, we need to know how the FBI is improving
    its management and oversight of critical intel tools. We know
    that the inspector general has raised flashing yellow lights
    about national security letters and to be sure that they are
    sent and used appropriately, the terrorist watch list, when you
    get on, how soon does it take to get the bad guy on it, and how
    soon does it take a good guy off of it inadvertently placed
    there, and also we're concerned that the FBI wiretap bill was
    unpaid. We cannot miss a ring on that number. The FBI must
    improve its accuracy and protect our privacy.
        Then we go to the crime budget. There is a surge in crime
    in the United States of America and we need our FBI. We are
    very concerned that over the years, funding for the FBI in the
    terrorist area was taken at the expense of crime.
        This year, the request is $2.3 billion for the FBI's
    traditional crime-fighting efforts, a $105 million increase
    over the 2008 omnibus level, but the budget has no new funds
    for the surge in violent crime, the additional surge
    responsibility of investigating the mortgage fraud disclosures
    which I know the chairman's an expert in, and also continuing
    our efforts to deal with a rising crime against children, the
    child predator issues from those who stalk children in our
    communities to the growing international child pornography
    rings.
        Since September 11th, the FBI has shifted 2,000 agents from
    violent crime to counterterrorism work. Local law enforcements
    taken up this slack. They're stretched to the limit. So, if
    we're going to have a surge of help in Baghdad, we need a surge
    of help in Baltimore.
        We support the idea of the joint Federal-State task forces.
    We have seen the work, the excellent work the FBI has done with
    these joint Federal-State task forces in fighting violent
    gangs, drug dealers, and child predators.
        If we can put $5 billion into the Iraqi police force, we
    can put more money into our FBI. Given all the FBI's important
    roles and responsibilities, we want to be sure that they have
    the right resources, that they are able to hire and keep the
    right people and that they have the modern technology that we
    need to fight these new techno-threats against the United
    States.
        We want to very much hear the Director's priorities and to
    work with him in a spirit of bipartisan partnership to keep
    America as safe as we can by having a strong FBI and we're
    going to be smarter in the way we work with you and fund this
    in order to get the job done.
        I now turn to Senator Shelby for any comments he has to
    make.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Before I begin
    my opening statement, I would want to take a moment to commend
    the chairwoman for her fiery comments to the OMB Director in
    the supplemental hearing that took place moments ago.
        Senator Mikulski, I stand with you in the fight to increase
    State and local funding in the supplemental and thank you for
    being the leader in this effort.
        Director Mueller, thank you for joining us today. We had a
    nice meeting in my office yesterday to discuss the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation's 2009 budget request.
        I want to begin by thanking the men and women of the FBI
    who work every day to protect the Nation. We're all indebted to
    them for the sacrifices they make to protect us.
        Since your arrival as the sixth Director of the FBI,
    Congress has tasked the FBI, Mr. Director, with more
    responsibility than any other Federal law enforcement agency
    resulting in more challenges and changes than ever before. No
    one knows this more than you.
        The FBI is the Nation's premier law enforcement,
    counterterrorism, and counterintelligence agency. The Bureau's
    missions include fighting terrorism, foreign intelligence
    operations, cyber crime, public corruption, white collar crime,
    and violent crime.
        The FBI request for 2009 is $7.1 billion. This is a $448
    million increase over the 2008 omnibus funding level. While
    this represents an increase, the FBI has a $56 million
    shortfall in the 2009 budget request.
        The bottom line may have increased but funding for the core
    missions and the responsibility has not. This hole in the
    budget increases the pressure on the FBI to do more with less.
        Based on my review of your request, Mr. Director, combined
    with the likely fiscal constraints of this subcommittee, we
    will need your assistance as we face tough funding decisions.
    This subcommittee and the Bureau share the difficult task of
    targeting these limited resources in a manner that safeguards
    taxpayer dollars while preserving public safety.
        I want to re-emphasize the chairwoman's point that since 9/
    11, the FBI has shifted 2,000 agents from violent crime into
    counterterrorism and while this shift was necessary, it has
    created a huge burden on our State and local enforcement
    agents.
        This budget abandons our State and local law enforcement
    officials and cuts at all the grants that would have helped
    them to meet our most critical needs. We will work with you,
    Mr. Director, to ensure that we provide the FBI with the
    resources necessary to assist these critical partners in our
    fight against crime.
        Director Mueller, Congress has provided nearly $100 million
    for the FBI's render safe mission for critical equipment and
    air assets to counter the explosive devices in the United
    States. The FBI's render safe mission requires the FBI to have
    the capability to access, diagnose, and render safe chemical,
    biological, radiological, or nuclear devices within the United
    States and its territories.
        The FBI's responsible for all render safe operations
    involving weapons of mass destruction in the National Capital
    Region. It has been approximately 1 year since the chairwoman
    and I worked with you in good faith to provide the FBI with the
    funding needed for this mission.
        I understand as of today, the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) has still not released $38 million in funding
    appropriated in last year's war supplemental necessary for the
    Bureau to perform its critical weapons of mass destruction
    (WMD) and render safe missions. The availability of that
    funding expires in less than 6 months, September 30, 2008.
        I look forward to hearing your plans on how the FBI will be
    fully obligating these funds prior to their expiration.
        Currently, the FBI has on-call assets from other agencies.
    These same on-call assets are also responsible for conducting
    other critical missions. If these assets are not designated for
    both the U.S. Government and the FBI, how will the FBI use them
    to carry out a render safe response during a crisis? These
    assets could be double-booked.
        The FBI's Hazardous Device School, HDS, is a 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 more than 20,000 bomb
    technicians. That is a proven record of success.
        A November 2007 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report
    stated that IEDs, roadside bombs, and suicide car bombs caused
    70 percent of all American combat casualties in Iraq and 50
    percent of all combat casualties in Afghanistan. The report
    also notes that ``there's a growing concern that IEDs might
    eventually be used by insurgents and terrorists worldwide,
    including in this country.''
        The administration's most recent homeland security strategy
    recognizes the potential threat of IEDs being used by
    terrorists here. IEDs are clearly a threat. We need to
    understand and prepare for them. We cannot afford to be
    complacent and pretend that it cannot happen here.
        The question is will we be prepared when they arrive? There
    has been more than 13,000 IED and evidentiary submissions from
    Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007. These submissions cause backlogs
    that require Federal, State, and local law enforcement to wait
    an average of 200 plus days to receive the results of forensic
    examinations from the FBI lab.
        We need to make sure that the FBI and its lab have the
    resources it needs to handle not just the influx of work
    associated with the war on terrorism but also provide timely
    forensic assistance to law enforcement. We must ensure that the
    Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center has the forensic
    and technical capabilities it needs to support its critical
    mission of countering the IED threat from terrorists without
    denying those same services to others who depend on the FBI for
    lab support.
        This threat, I believe, is not going to diminish. There are
    many other issues, Mr. Director, I'd like to discuss, including
    national security letters, critical rebuilding of the FBI
    Academy and the use of resources with the FBI's priority
    missions, and I look forward to your thoughts on these issues
    and many others.
        Thank you for joining us.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Shelby, and again
    Director Mueller, we just want to assure you we're going to
    move on your budget in a bipartisan way. Our thoughts are
    identical on this, but why don't you go ahead with your
    testimony?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER III

        Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Senator
    Shelby. Thank you for having me here today to discuss the
    issues relating to our 2009 budget request.
        I did submit a longer statement. I would hope that it would
    be made part of the record.
        As you are aware, the FBI's top three priorities are
    counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber security.
    These priorities are critical to our national security and to
    the FBI's vital work as a committed member of the intelligence
    community.
        Also important are our efforts to protect our communities
    from the very real threat of crime, especially violent crime.
    In the counterterrorism arena, al-Qaeda and related groups
    continue to present a critical threat to the homeland, so do
    self-radicalized homegrown extremists and they are difficult to
    detect, often using the Internet to train and operate.
        At home, through our domestic joint terrorism task forces
    and abroad with our legal attaches and our international
    partners, we together share real-time intelligence to fight
    these terrorists and their supporters.
        An important aspect of the fight against terrorists is the
    threat of weapons of mass destruction and the FBI's commitment
    to our render safe mission to prevent, prepare for, and respond
    to the threat of a WMD in the United States.
        We appreciate the resources that you have provided for this
    endeavor and with your ongoing support, we will continue to
    work on this critical issue. I'm looking forward to discussing
    the funding in support of that particular initiative.
        Another important effort is the work of the Terrorist
    Explosive Device Analytical Center, the TEDAC as it is called,
    as was pointed out by Senator Shelby. This center was
    established as an interagency laboratory for analyzing
    explosive devices used by terrorists worldwide and it does use
    the most contemporary forensics techniques available to do so,
    providing that information to our troops on the ground in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
        With regard to the counterintelligence threat, protecting
    our Nation's most sensitive secrets from hostile intelligence
    services or others who would do us harm is also at the core of
    the FBI mission.
        In furtherance of this priority, we reach out to businesses
    and universities. We join forces with our intelligence
    community partners and we work closely with the military to
    help safeguard our country's secrets.
        As was pointed out by you, Madam Chairwoman, cyber threats
    to our national security and the intersection between cyber
    crime, terrorism, and counterintelligence is increasingly
    evident.
        Today, the FBI's cyber investigators focus on these threats
    and we partner with Government and industry. One way we do so
    is through our sponsorship of a program called Infraguard, an
    alliance of more than 23,000 individual and corporate members
    to help identify and prevent cyber attacks.
        We have also asked for your specific support of our efforts
    in connection with the comprehensive national cyber security
    initiative. The FBI's unique position as both an intelligence
    and law enforcement agency allows us to rapidly respond to
    cyber events at U.S. Government agencies, military
    installations, and within the broader private sector.
        I am mindful of your ongoing interest in the FBI's progress
    in building an intelligence program while combating these
    threats. The FBI has made a number of changes in the last
    several years to enhance our capabilities.
        Today's intelligence is woven throughout every FBI program
    and operation. By utilizing this intelligence, we have
    successfully broken up terrorist plots across the country, from
    Portland, Oregon; Lackawanna, New York; Torrance, California;
    Chicago, Illinois, to the more recent Fort Dix, and JFK plots.
        We have increased and enhanced our working relationships
    with our international partners, sharing critical intelligence
    to identify terrorist networks and disrupt planned attacks
    around the globe.
        We have doubled the number of intelligence analysts on
    board and tripled the number of linguists. We have tripled the
    number of joint terrorism task forces, from 33 in September
    2001 to over 100 to date. Those task forces combine the
    resources and expertise of the FBI, the intelligence community,
    military, State, local, and tribal law enforcement.
        Another critical and important part of the FBI mission, the
    traditional mission is quite clearly our work against criminal
    elements in our communities, very often and most useful in task
    forces with our Federal and State and local and tribal
    partners.
        Also, public corruption remains the FBI's top criminal
    investigative priority. In the past 2 years alone, we have
    convicted over 1,800 Federal, State, and local officials for
    abusing their public trust.
        Similarly, our work to protect the civil rights guaranteed
    by our Constitution is a priority, which includes fighting
    human trafficking, as well as, our focus on the civil rights
    cold case initiative.
        Gangs and violent crime continue to be as much a concern
    for the FBI as it is for the rest of the country. The FBI's 143
    Safe Streets violent gang task forces leverage the unique
    knowledge of State and local police officers with Federal
    investigative resources to combat this growing problem.
        The FBI also sponsors 52 additional violent crime and
    interstate theft task forces, as well as, 16 safe trails task
    forces targeting crime in Indian country.
        The FBI combats transnational organized crime in part by
    linking the efforts of our Nation's 800,000 State and local
    police officers with international partners. This is
    accomplished through the FBI's legal attache offices of which
    we have over 60 at this juncture around the world.
        And finally, major white collar crime. From corporate fraud
    to fraud in the mortgage industry clearly continues to be an
    economic threat to the country. For example, in recent years,
    the number of pending FBI cases focusing on mortgage fraud,
    including those associated with subprime lending, has grown
    nearly 50 percent to over 1,300 cases. Roughly one-half of
    these cases have losses of over $1 million and several have
    losses greater than $10 million. In addition, the FBI will
    continue our work to identify large-scale industry insiders and
    criminal enterprises engaged in systemic economic fraud.
        As I believe both of you have pointed out and we, too,
    recognize that for the past 100 years of the FBI's history, our
    greatest asset has been our people. We are building on that
    history with a comprehensive restructuring of our approach to
    intelligence training for both our professional intelligence
    analyst cadre, as well as, for new FBI agents coming out of
    Quantico.
        We have and will continue to streamline our recruiting and
    hiring processes to attract persons having the critical skills
    needed for continued success of the FBI's mission.
        I also remain committed to ensuring our employees have the
    information technology infrastructure they need to do their
    jobs. This includes the continuing successful development of
    the Sentinel Case Management System, as well as, other
    information technology (IT) upgrades.
        I am very well aware of your concerns that we always use
    legal tools given to the FBI fully but also appropriately. For
    example, after the Department of Justice review of the use of
    national security letters, we instituted internal oversight
    mechanisms to ensure that we, as an organization, minimized the
    chance of future lapses.
        Among the reforms was the creation of a new Office of
    Integrity and Compliance within the Bureau to identify and
    mitigate potential risks.
        In closing, the FBI recognizes that it is in some sense a
    national security service responsible not only for collecting,
    analyzing and disseminating intelligence but most particularly
    for taking timely action to neutralize threats to this country.
    These threats could be from a terrorist, from a foreign spy or
    a criminal, and in doing so, we also recognize that we must
    properly balance civil liberties with the public safety in
    pursuing our efforts and we will continually strive to do so.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Madam Chairwoman, Senator Shelby, I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify this afternoon and look forward to your
    questions.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller III

        Good afternoon, Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and Members of
    the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2009 budget for the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I would also like to thank you
    for your continued oversight of the Bureau and for your efforts to
    ensure our success as we pursue the shared goal of making America
    safer.
        After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the FBI's priorities
    shifted dramatically as we charted a new course, with national security
    at the forefront of our mission. The intervening 7 years have seen
    significant changes at the FBI, and we have made remarkable progress.
    Today, the FBI is a stronger organization, combining greater
    capabilities with a longstanding commitment to the security of the
    United States, while at the same time upholding the Constitution and
    the rule of law and protecting civil liberties.

                              2009 BUDGET REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2009 budget for the FBI totals 31,340 positions and
    $7.1 billion, including program increases of 1,129 new positions (280
    Special Agents, 271 Intelligence Analysts, and 578 Professional
    Support) and $447.6 million. These resources are critical for the FBI
    to perform its national security, criminal law enforcement, and
    criminal justice services missions. Most importantly, the additional
    funding requested will continue to build upon our on-going efforts to
    integrate and cement our intelligence and law enforcement activities.
    These resources will allow us to create an awareness of, and become
    receptors for change in threats, and have the ability to make immediate
    adjustments in priorities and focus in an environment where national
    security threats and crime problems are constantly changing and
    shifting.
        Guiding the development of the FBI's budget strategy are six
    enterprise-wide and interdependent capabilities that the FBI needs to
    effectively perform its national security, criminal investigative, and
    criminal justice services missions. These end-state capabilities are:
      --Domain and Operations.--A mature enterprise capability for
            employing intelligence and analysis to identify and understand
            the national security threats and crime problems challenging
            America, and developing and executing operational strategies to
            counter these threats and crime problems;
      --Surveillance.--A surveillance (physical, electronic, human source)
            and operational technology capability to meet operational
            requirements;
      --Partnerships.--An established and productive network of
            partnerships with local, State, Federal, and international law
            enforcement and criminal justice agencies;
      --Leveraging Technology.--An enhanced capability for providing
            forensic, operational technology, identification, biometric,
            training, and criminal justice services to the FBI workforce
            and our local, State, Federal, and international partners;
      --Workforce.--A professional workforce that possesses the critical
            skills and competencies (investigative, technical, analytical,
            language, supervisory, and managerial), experiences, and
            training required to perform our mission; and
      --Infrastructure.--A safe and appropriate work environment and
            information technology to facilitate the performance of the
            FBI's mission.
        The FBI's 2009 budget strategy builds upon both current knowledge
    of threats and crime problems and a forward-look to how we anticipate
    terrorists, foreign agents and spies, and criminal adversaries are
    likely to adapt tactics and operations in a constantly evolving and
    changing world. This forward-look helps inform and determine the
    critical operational and organizational capabilities the FBI must
    acquire over the same time period to remain vital and effective in
    meeting future threats and crime problems.
        We also linked our budget plan to the FBI's Strategy Management
    System to ensure the investments in new resources were tied to our
    strategic vision and goals.
        I will highlight some of the key components of our budget request
    below.

                             DOMAIN AND OPERATIONS

        In order for the FBI to be successful, we must be able to fully
    utilize our intelligence analysis techniques to establish a mature
    enterprise capability for identifying and understanding the national
    security threats and crime problems facing the United States, and to
    develop and execute operational strategies to counter these threats and
    problems.
        This budget requests 568 new positions (190 Special Agents, 158
    Intelligence Analysts, and 220 Professional Support) and $131.0 million
    to improve intelligence analysis and conduct intelligence-driven
    terrorism investigations and operations. 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; 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; leverage and expand existing
    Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) operations to support all
    National Security Branch (NSB) mission areas to include
    Counterintelligence, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), Domestic and
    International Counterterrorism, and Intelligence; and address growth in
    the number of terrorism and counterintelligence-related computer
    intrusion cases.
        The National Counterterrorism Center's 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.
    Within the United States Government, the FBI has been assigned
    responsibility for Render Safe operations involving WMD in the National
    Capital Region and for the rendering safe of deliberate deployments of
    WMD throughout the remainder of the United States. To carry out its
    critical responsibilities in the area of WMD, the FBI must continue to
    build the capacities and capabilities of its Render Safe Program while
    ensuring that the FBI is adequately staffed and equipped to
    forensically respond to a terrorist incident, whether it be Chemical,
    Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear. The FBI's fiscal year 2009 budget
    includes 132 positions (43 Special Agents and 89 Professional Support)
    and $65.8 million to enhance the FBI'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 FBI's fiscal year 2009 budget for Domain and Operations also
    includes an enhancement of 211 positions (35 Special Agents, 113
    Intelligence Analysts, and 63 Professional Support) and $38.6 million
    to support investigative, intelligence, and technical requirements of
    the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative.
        The threat of cyber-related foreign intelligence operations to the
    United States is rapidly expanding. The number of actors with the
    ability to utilize computers for illegal, harmful, and possibly
    devastating purposes continues to rise. Cyber intrusions presenting a
    national security threat have compromised computers on United States
    Government, private sector, and allied networks. The FBI is in a unique
    position to counter cyber threats as the only agency with the statutory
    authority, expertise, and ability to combine counterterrorism,
    counterintelligence, and criminal resources to neutralize, mitigate,
    and disrupt illegal computer-supported operations domestically. The
    FBI's intelligence and law enforcement role supports response to cyber
    events at United States Government agencies, United States military
    installations, and the broader private sector.

                                  SURVEILLANCE

        Shifting from a reactive criminal prosecution approach to a
    prevention and intelligence-driven focus in our counterterrorism
    program is taxing the FBI's capacity to gather intelligence through
    both physical and electronic surveillance. The capacity to carry out
    extended covert court-authorized surveillance of subjects and targets
    is absolutely critical to the FBI's counterterrorism and
    counterintelligence programs. Surveillance activities--physical and
    electronic--give us insight into and awareness of our adversaries,
    which, in turn, create opportunities to identify sleeper cells, disrupt
    support networks and communications, and recruit assets. We need a
    vigorous 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 2009, we seek an enhancement of 145 positions (10
    Special Agents and 135 Professional Support) and $88.5 million to
    strengthen surveillance capabilities. These resources will enable the
    FBI to increase the number of physical surveillance teams; replace
    aging surveillance aircraft; develop new techniques and tools to
    address emerging technologies; meet demands for new audio and data
    collection and upgrade or replace obsolete digital collection system
    equipment and components; and develop new techniques and tools for
    tactical operations.

                                  PARTNERSHIPS

        The FBI prides itself on establishing and maintaining a productive
    network of partnerships with local, State, Federal, and international
    law enforcement and criminal justice agencies. In order to do this, we
    must enhance our capability and capacity to collect, manage, analyze,
    and share information within the FBI and with our Intelligence
    Community (IC), law enforcement, and allied partners. The fiscal year
    2009 budget includes 3 positions (2 Special Agents and 1 Professional
    Support) and $5.7 million to expand the FBI's presence overseas to
    obtain intelligence relative to threats involving the homeland; open
    and staff a new Legal Attache office in Algiers, Algeria, which will
    address a significant number of counterterrorism cases and leads in
    that region; and enhance the FBI's ability to participate in State and
    local intelligence Fusion Centers, which have become an important
    component in maintaining the flow of information between and within
    Federal, State, local, and Tribal Governments.

                             LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY

        Technology is the cornerstone to fulfilling the FBI mission as well
    as creating efficiencies for both FBI personnel and our Intelligence
    and Law Enforcement Community partners. Leveraging technology will
    allow the FBI to provide forensic, analytical, and operational
    technology capabilities to FBI investigators and analysts, law
    enforcement officers, and the intelligence community. Without enhanced
    resources to invest in applied research, development, knowledge
    building, testing, and evaluation, the FBI will not be able to take
    advantage of emerging technologies or adapt to a constantly changing
    and evolving threat and operational environment.
        For example, the use of DNA technology continues to be an important
    tool for law enforcement; it not only helps identify suspects, but it
    can also be used to ensure innocent persons are not wrongly convicted
    of a crime. The FBI Laboratory continues to support forensic
    exploitation analysis for FBI investigations, State and local cases,
    and terrorist identification from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)
    obtained from in-theater operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FBI's
    fiscal year 2009 budget includes 52 Professional Support positions and
    $32.1 million for DNA-related initiatives and enhanced counterterrorism
    and forensic analysis support for FBI investigations. The failure to
    provide timely examination results can affect information available for
    prosecutors during trials or negotiating plea agreements, or can cause
    a delay in the gathering of intelligence to support the identification
    of terrorists and their associates, which could impact the safety of
    United States troops overseas. By enhancing the forensic capabilities
    of the FBI Laboratory, the FBI will be better positioned to solve
    crimes and offer assistance to partner law enforcement agencies.
        The FBI must also keep pace with evolving technology. Currently,
    all wireless carriers in the United States are upgrading their networks
    to 3rd Generation wireless technology. This upgrade will radically
    transform voice, internet, email, short message service, multimedia
    services and any future services from circuit-switched data to packet
    transferred data. The FBI, along with the rest of the Intelligence
    Community, has created a Joint Wireless Implementation Plan, which will
    allow us to provide the field with advanced tools and technologies as
    well as provide adequate training on the use of duly authorized
    wireless intercept and tracking tools. The fiscal year 2009 budget
    includes $4.1 million to assist us in keeping abreast of this cutting
    edge technology and the ability to counter the technology posed by our
    adversaries.

                                   WORKFORCE

        The FBI remains committed to a professional workforce that
    possesses the critical skills and competencies (investigative,
    technical, analytical, language, supervisory, and managerial),
    experience, and training required to perform our mission. With an
    expanding mission and a growing workforce there will be an increase in
    workforce-related challenges that need addressing. We must be able to
    attract strong candidates to fill Special Agent, Language Analyst,
    Intelligence Analyst, and Professional Support positions, bring these
    candidates on-board in a timely manner, and provide them with
    professional training.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget includes 18 positions and $43.6 million
    to address these workforce requirements, including resources for
    National Security Branch Training, which will enable the FBI to expand
    the number of Domestic Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Collection Courses,
    develop and deliver a HUMINT training program that specifically
    addresses terrorist organizations, and provide training to Cyber
    investigators on national security-related computer intrusions; the
    Foreign Language Proficiency Pay Program (FLP3), which will
    dramatically increase the FBI's recruitment and retention of highly
    qualified language professionals, especially those with expertise in
    Arabic, Urdu, and Chinese; pay modernization efforts, which will align
    FBI efforts more closely to the pay modernization plans established by
    the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI); and the
    FBI's Personnel Security Program, which will expedite the
    investigation, adjudication, and polygraph examination for prospective
    FBI employees and contractors.
        As a leader in the Intelligence and Law Enforcement Communities,
    the FBI must be equipped to hire, train, and pay the specialized cadre
    of personnel that the FBI employs.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        Critical to the success of the FBI's mission are safe and
    appropriate work environments and state-of-the-art information
    technology (IT). Over the years, the FBI has made substantial
    investments to upgrade its information technology architecture,
    including the purchase of computer workstations and software for
    employees and networks for connectivity both within the FBI and with
    external partners. Additionally, the FBI is moving forward to invest in
    upgrading field and training facilities to ensure secure and adequate
    workspace. However, the FBI still faces gaps in its capacity to support
    all of its critical projects and initiatives. Continued investments are
    needed to close the gaps to ensure the availability of critical FBI IT
    systems, applications, facilities, and data in the event of a disaster.
    The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $38.2 million to continue to
    develop facilities and IT support and services.
        The FBI prides itself on its ability to share information in a
    timely manner. The fiscal year 2009 budget includes resources to
    enhance and extend the unclassified network (UNet) and integrate it
    with the Law Enforcement Online, as well as upgrade our IT disaster
    recovery locations. This funding will enable the FBI to increase
    information sharing capabilities within the Bureau as well as with
    outside entities, like the Intelligence Community. Additionally, this
    funding will support the creation of backup IT capabilities to be
    available in the event of a catastrophic disaster.
        The FBI's budget also includes upgrades to our field facility
    infrastructure, expansion of the FBI Academy, and security for field
    office expansion. The FBI is in dire need of adequate space for FBI
    personnel and the large number of FBI-led, multi-agency task forces
    such as Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Safe Streets Task Forces, Health
    Care Fraud Task Forces, and Field Intelligence Groups. These resources
    will support the FBI's facility requirements to ensure adequate, safe,
    and secure working environments. The budget also includes resources to
    consolidate FBI records at the Central Records Complex (CRC). The CRC
    will enable us to efficiently locate and access all of our records
    quickly, thus allowing us to more effectively process name checks.
      strategic execution team: improvement of fbi's intelligence program
        Before closing, I would like to tell the Committee about our
    Strategic Execution Team (SET) and describe some of the changes that
    team has brought about toward improving FBI intelligence activities.
    This team exemplifies the commitment of the men and women of the FBI to
    successfully integrating our intelligence and law enforcement
    activities.
        We recently completed a comprehensive self-assessment of our
    intelligence program and concluded that we need to move further and
    faster to enhance our capabilities. In consultation with the
    President's Intelligence Advisory Board, we began working to examine
    how we can accelerate our progress and we have identified a number of
    areas where we are focusing our efforts.
        We have created a SET of field and headquarters personnel to help
    drive implementation of needed changes across the organization. The SET
    team includes approximately 90 agents, analysts, and other professional
    staff, from FBI Headquarters and roughly 27 field offices. This team
    has focused its initial efforts on three critical areas: intelligence
    operations, human capital, and program management.
        With the guidance of the SET, we are restructuring our Field
    Intelligence Groups (FIGs), so they can better coordinate with each
    other, with street agents, and with analysts and agents at FBI
    Headquarters. Drawing from the best practices we identified, we have
    developed a single model under which all FIGs will function, to
    increase collaboration between intelligence and operation, and to
    provide accountability for intelligence gathering, analysis, use, and
    production. The model can be adjusted to the size and complexity of
    small, medium, and large field offices.
        To enhance our collection capabilities, we are taking a two-pronged
    approach. First, we must ensure we are taking full advantage of our
    current collection capabilities in terms of what we know through our
    case work, and what we could know if we asked our existing source base
    the right questions. Tactical analysts will work with investigative
    squads, in all program areas, to ensure that collection plans are
    executed, and to help squads identify opportunities to address the
    intelligence requirements of the office.
        Second, to enhance the picture of a threat developed through our
    investigations, the FIG will include a team of specially trained agents
    who will collect intelligence to meet requirements, conduct liaison
    with local partners, and focus on source development.
        In terms of human capital, we have refined the Intelligence Analyst
    career path, including training, experiences, and roles that are
    required to develop a cadre of well-rounded and highly proficient
    analysts. We have also established core intelligence tasks for all
    Special Agents, further defined the Special Agent intelligence career
    path, and tailored individual development plans for all agents.
    Finally, we have developed a university recruiting program to hire
    additional intelligence analysts with targeted skill sets. We received
    hundreds of applications as a result of this effort.
        We in the FBI are mandated by the President, Congress, the Attorney
    General, and the Director of National Intelligence to protect national
    security. For nearly 100 years, the FBI has used intelligence to solve
    cases; today, however, we rely on our agents and analysts working hand-
    in-hand with colleagues across the country and around the world to
    collect intelligence on multiple, inter-related issues. With the
    authority and guidance provided by the Intelligence
        Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and other directives and
    recommendations, the FBI has implemented significant changes to enhance
    our ability to counter the most critical threats to our security.
        Today, we are building on our legacy and our capabilities as we
    focus on our top priority: preventing another terrorist attack. It is
    indeed a time of change in the FBI, but our values can never change. We
    must continue to protect the security of our nation while upholding the
    civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution to every United States
    citizen.
        When I speak to Special Agents upon their graduation from the FBI
    Academy, I remind each one that it is not enough to prevent foreign
    countries from stealing our secrets--we must prevent that from
    happening while still upholding the rule of law. It is not enough to
    stop the terrorist--we must stop him while maintaining civil liberties.
    It is not enough to catch the criminal--we must catch him while
    respecting his civil rights. The rule of law, civil liberties, and
    civil rights--these are not our burdens; they are what make us better.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Madam Chairwoman, I would like to conclude by thanking you and this
    Committee for your service and your support. Many of the
    accomplishments we have realized during the past 7 years are in part
    due to your efforts and support through annual and supplemental
    appropriations. From addressing the growing gang problem to creating
    additional Legal Attache offices around the world, and, most
    importantly, to protecting the American people from terrorist attack,
    you and the Committee have supported our efforts.
        On behalf of the men and women of the FBI, I look forward to
    working with you in the years to come as we continue to develop the
    capabilities we need to defeat the threats of the future.

                                 MORTGAGE FRAUD

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Director Mueller. We
    have about 4 minutes left in the vote. Senator Shelby and I are
    going to dash to the vote. This subcommittee will stand in
    recess. The first one back will reopen the hearing.
        This subcommittee will reconvene for the purposes of asking
    questions.
        Senator Shelby, I am going to take about 5 minutes, turn to
    you and then we'll come back for a second round. I know your
    ranking membership on the Banking Committee is taking a lot of
    your time.
        So, my first question is going to deal with mortgage fraud
    and the whole issue of predatory lending. As we look at what
    are the resources that the FBI needs, we know we've talked
    about the national security issues related to
    counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and the cyber
    initiative, I'll come back to that, but you've also gotten a
    surge responsibility related to mortgage fraud and the FBI
    mortgage load, the FBI mortgage fraud workload is increasing
    dramatically.
        The suspicious activity reports of mortgage fraud is up 300
    percent. We know that your workload has increased and it
    requires a very sophisticated--all of your agents are
    sophisticated, but this goes to forensic accounting and a whole
    lot of other very technical fields.
        Could you share with us what is it that you need in order
    to continue to do the type of investigations America needs you
    to do? We know that the workload has increased, that you have
    138 agents dedicated to investigating mortgage fraud.
        How many more agents do you need? Will you be able to add
    them? What is it that you need in the budget to really be able
    to meet this kind of surge demand?
        Mr. Mueller. Madam Chairwoman, as you point out, we've had
    a tremendous surge in cases related to the subprime mortgage
    debacle.
        We currently have almost 1,300 cases that have grown
    exponentially over the last several years and we expect them to
    grow even further. We also, as I pointed out in my statement,
    have 19 cases involving institutions themselves, where mortgage
    fraud may have contributed to misstatements and the like as you
    have pointed out, each of these cases, particularly the larger
    ones, require forensic analysis.
        We currently have a total of 150 agents who are working
    these cases. The vast majority of agents are working cases on
    brokers, buyers, lenders and the like and other agents that are
    working on the corporation misstatements. We also are
    participating in 33 task forces around the country.
        What we have found is that, over the last couple of years,
    we have had to take agents from other areas, whether it be
    healthcare fraud or other financial fraud cases, and put them
    on this area.
        When the budget was put together, the subprime mortgage
    cases had not grown to the point where we could anticipate the
    extent of the surge. Even at this point, I'm not certain at
    this point we can see the extent of the surge.
        What I'd like to do is be able to get back to you in terms
    of how many additional resources we need to address this.
        [The information follows:]

                            Mortgage Case Resources

        The FBI will work with the Department of Justice, the
    Office of Management and Budget, and Congress to convey the
    full resource requirements required to address Mortgage Fraud
    investigations.

        Mr. Mueller. One other point that you have raised in the
    past, as I recall, and that is the possibility of seeing an
    upsurge in cases relating to reverse mortgages. That is
    something that we are seeing and may well need additional
    resources to address.
        It is still too early to discern the full contours of the
    extent of the number of cases that we'll have to address, but
    we'll keep in touch with the subcommittee on that.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we want very much to work with you
    because we feel that the enforcement of existing laws and
    holding people accountable through rigorous and fair
    investigations are what is very much needed.
        We need to not only protect the American people with their
    foreclosures but we have to make sure that we maintain
    confidence in the financial institutions. If we have a collapse
    of confidence, this could have even far more draconian effects
    on our economy.
        So, we'd like to hear back from you about what do you need
    to do the job that you're required and we request you to do.
    What we're looking for is full budgeting, not only the number
    of agents but the other kind of technical assistants you might
    need from others that are agents, as well as clerical help, et.
    cetera. This is enormously significant, important and timely.
    So, we look forward to hearing from you on that.

                         STATE AND LOCAL VIOLENT CRIME

        The other area that I want to move on is the whole issue of
    State and--excuse me. State and local violent crime. State and
    local law enforcement strongly support the joint Federal-State
    task forces. We hear that everywhere, but we're concerned that
    you've not had the resources to expand the program.
        In the President's request to us, there's no additional
    funding to expand these excellent task forces where we maximize
    the resources of the Federal Government and utilize the
    resources of State and local.
        You know that crime is up, robbery, aggravated assault,
    murder. So, our question to you is with the violent crimes on
    the rise, what is it that you think--what would be the
    desirable number you would like to expand the joint task forces
    and what would it take to do that?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, as I think I pointed out, we have 182
    violent gang crime task forces now, we continue to expand. We
    have 16 safe trails task forces, 23 child prostitution task
    forces, and 9 major theft task forces around the country.
        Senator Mikulski. Say that last one again.
        Mr. Mueller. We have 23 child prostitution task forces and
    nine major theft task forces around the country today.
        Senator Mikulski. Child prostitution?
        Mr. Mueller. Child prostitution task forces, yes. Children
    that are----
        Senator Mikulski. Lured into this?
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Lured into child prostitution
    rings, yes, around the country.
        Senator Mikulski. God.
        Mr. Mueller. Whether it be violent crime or areas such as
    this, it is our belief we have approximately 12,500 agents at
    this juncture, and we leverage our resources by task forces
    with our State, local, and other Federal counterparts.
        Regardless of the vehicle on the Federal side, I do believe
    that it's important that the State and local police
    departments, and sheriffs' office's are encouraged to
    participate in these task forces. Regardless of the vehicle, to
    the extent that funds are made available and tied into
    participation on task forces, it maximizes our ability and the
    ability of State and local law enforcement to address a number
    of these issues that you have raised.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I'm going to come back to crimes
    against children. I'm going to turn now, my time is up, to
    Senator Shelby. I was a child abuse social worker. You know,
    all crimes are terrible but crimes against children are
    heinous. So, we'll come back, and we know the FBI's been just
    great on this, on the Internet predator and so it's a tough
    duty.
        Senator Shelby.

                              RENDER SAFE MISSION

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Director,
    I alluded in my opening statement to the $38 million provided
    in the 2008 war supplemental with the OMB program, associate
    directors for justice, which it's my understanding they have
    refused to release.
        When these--when requested, these funds were critical, we
    were told, for the Bureau to perform its WMD and render safe
    missions. These funds have been available for obligation for
    approximately 1 year and will expire, as I mentioned, in 6
    months.
        Two questions. Are these funds critical to successfully
    carry out your mission?
        Mr. Mueller. They are, Senator, and let me explain a little
    bit about the mission to the extent that I can do so without
    going into classified matters.
        That mission requires us to put together WMD response
    teams, which include persons with the skills to be able to
    render safe various WMD devices. However, it also requires
    supporting command, control, communications, logistics,
    scientific and hazardous materials support elements as well,
    and coupled with that is a necessity for mobility of getting
    those resources to the site of the device.
        We have had tremendous support in long distance and getting
    those resources necessary for the program. We have been working
    with OMB to get the support for the release of that 38,000 that
    you mentioned.
        Senator Shelby. $38 million.
        Mr. Mueller. $38 million. Maybe it's a wee bit more than
    what I said. The $38 million that you mentioned, and it is
    tremendously important because we do have the responsibility
    for the National Capital Region, as well as, responsibility
    across the country and consequently that's important to us.
        Senator Shelby. Why is it--what's the hold-up with OMB?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, we're in discussions with
    representatives of OMB and our hope is that these funds will be
    released relatively shortly.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt----
        Senator Shelby. Yes, you may.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Without in any way taking
    from your time?
        I am very disappointed in this, and I think my colleague
    and I would like to--we just had kind of a dust-up with OMB
    over law enforcement, at least I had a dust-up with them, and
    they've got to release the money and we would again work on a
    bipartisan basis to write a letter to him or to ask for the
    release of the money.
        It was appropriated in the supplemental. You need the money
    and this is a pretty important mission, so much so that we
    can't even talk about it except in a classified way. It doesn't
    get any bigger deal than that.
        So, Senator Shelby, why don't, after the hearing, you and I
    put our heads together and see if we can't spring this?
        Senator Shelby. We want to work with the Director on this.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Mueller. Let me just say that OMB has been supportive
    of this, in supporting our mission. This is the one outstanding
    issue there is, but they have been tremendously supportive of
    our mission.
        Senator Shelby. Do you think you'll resolve this on your
    own?
        Mr. Mueller. It is my hope that we can. As I say, we've had
    discussions with OMB recently as well.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we do the supplemental, the new
    supplemental, the new new new supplemental, and if it hasn't
    been--we've got to get that done, but we're going to be
    holding--we're going to be moving the supplemental in 2 weeks
    to the floor. So, let's--if we can't get it done in 2 weeks, we
    have to go to plan B. Okay?
        Mr. Mueller. Okay. Yes, ma'am.

                                  FUNDING GAP

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Budget for
    shortfalls. The budget the administration has submitted on
    behalf of the FBI proposes an additional $450 million to
    partially fund the implementation of the Bureau's intelligence
    mission and national security initiatives.
        This budget request fails to fix a $56 million gap in your
    base funding. During the 2008 budget process, Chairwoman
    Mikulski and I worked to provide the resources that you needed,
    Mr. Director, to close a $139 million shortfall in your budget.
    We expected the administration to fix the problem it created
    and we're disappointed that once again we're facing the
    substantial base shortfall in the FBI.
        With that in mind, what would be the impact on the FBI if
    there was a long-term continuing resolution for the first 90 to
    180 days of 2009? I know I don't want to contemplate that. It
    would be an impact.
        Mr. Mueller. I want to thank the subcommittee for its
    efforts last year on the shortfall. Most of it was taken care
    of. To the extent it was not, it did affect our ability to
    fully fund programs, such as the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA),
    cyber, surveillances and the like.
        If there is a continuing resolution and I would say 90
    days, it would probably have an impact or shortfall of
    approximately $30 million and that would result in a--could
    conceivably result in a hiring freeze and it would require
    across-the-board reductions in all of our programs, and I do
    point out that from experience. I know that a number of the
    national security-related budgets were passed earlier last
    year. These include the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
    quite obviously the military, as well as, the intelligence
    budgets. Now that we are a partner in the intelligence
    community, I would hope that the subcommittee would look at the
    impact of continuing resolutions. I recognize perhaps that we
    do need a budget as soon as possible, if we are to maintain and
    increase the programs that we have been discussing here.
        Senator Shelby. So basically, it could affect you carrying
    out your missions?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes. Yes, sir.

                  SHIFT OF CRIMINAL AGENTS TO COUNTERTERRORISM

        Senator Shelby. And the subject of realignment of FBI, I
    guess, from criminal cases to terrorism, since 9/11, the FBI
    has shifted more than 2,000 agents from criminal investigations
    into terrorism. I agree that terrorism is the highest priority
    and represents the gravest threat to national security.
        I think it's also shortsighted for us to continue to
    cannibalize the criminal side of the FBI when we should be
    requesting more agents and resources to provide the FBI with
    the means to fight the threat of terrorism, as well as, help
    State and local law enforcement fight the rising crime epidemic
    gripping our communities.
        Mr. Director, are you satisfied that the FBI is reaching
    the right balance in resources between its national security
    and the criminal investigation missions or could you do more
    with more resources?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, the answer to the last part of that
    question is yes, we could do more with the resources.
        The fact of the matter is----
        Senator Shelby. Without the resources, you've got one hand
    tied behind you.
        Mr. Mueller. We do, and the fact of the matter is, you've
    used the word ``cannibalize,'' and I think that is appropriate,
    we've taken resources from the criminal side of the house to
    meet our national security responsibilities and to build up the
    intelligence side of the house which was absolutely essential
    in the wake of September 11th.
        We increasingly find that State and local law enforcement
    want us back working on task forces with them. Not across the
    country generally but in certain places across the country
    warrants a backfill of those agents who we've had to take from
    the criminal side of the house and put on the national security
    side of the house.
        Likewise, with the subprime mortgage crisis, the Innocent
    Images task forces, the growth of the Internet and the cyber
    challenges present unique threats that we now face. On the
    criminal side of the house, I do believe it's important to
    recognize that we have certain particular skills that could
    augment State and local law enforcement. Furthermore, we should
    consider building up those agents and the other support
    functions that we've had to push over to the national security
    side since September 11th.

                  TERRORIST EXPLOSIVE DEVICE ANALYTICAL CENTER

        Senator Shelby. I want to get into the subject of the FBI
    labs. The Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, TEDAC
    we call it, accounted for almost two-thirds of the evidence
    submitted to the FBI lab for processing in 2007. This increased
    workload has affected the lab's ability to assist other
    agencies, including State and local law enforcement.
        The budget, this budget contains a request to reduce the
    backlog of the Federal Convicted Offender Program, but there
    appears to be minimal new resources to address the workload
    generated by TEDAC.
        Is the case turnaround time, which I'm told, Mr. Director,
    is currently averaging around 200 days, for processing evidence
    in the FBI lab an impediment to cases and prosecutions?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. If not, could it be?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, it is. We have two challenges here. One
    is IEDs, as you pointed out, and to bring in our expertise,
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF's)
    expertise to IEDs, whether they be in Iraq and Afghanistan or
    elsewhere around the world, and not only identifying----
        Senator Shelby. Sometimes here, although----
        Mr. Mueller. Or perhaps here----
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. I'm not suggesting----
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Ultimately.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. That.
        Mr. Mueller. But identifying the engineer, the persons
    responsible for the various mechanisms that are used, but also
    utilizing DNA and fingerprints, contributing to intelligence
    has been tremendously effective for the military.
        On the DNA side of the house, that has meant a delay and
    we've also had additional responsibilities on the DNA side of
    the house when broader categories of individuals whose
    specimens need to go into our databases and so on both fronts,
    we're facing a shortfall and have requested funds to address
    that shortfall.
        Senator Shelby. So TEDAC basically is not sufficient a
    resource to do its job, not the job you would want it to do?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, again we've had to take resources from
    the criminal cases to address the national security which in
    this case is TEDAC as opposed to the services that have
    traditionally provided, not only to our investigators on the
    criminal side but also State and local investigators, and we
    have had to, to a certain extent, dry up the support we give
    the State and local laboratories traditionally in order to meet
    the national security demands that have been placed upon us.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski, I hope that we'll look at
    this hard and fast as we get into this to make sure that we
    fund it properly.
        Senator Mikulski. Absolutely. I find it--I find this very
    troubling.

                                  FBI ACADEMY

        Senator Shelby. Quantico, very important, the FBI Academy
    in Quantico. Not only trains all FBI special agents but also
    trains intelligence analysts, as well as, State, local and
    international law enforcement National Academy students.
        Some of us are concerned that your training infrastructure
    needs are not being met here. It's a question of resources. The
    FBI Academy has expanded over the years and still struggles to
    satisfy all of the requirements of students and faculty to
    ensure that your agents, analysts and the National Academy
    students have the finest training capability available.
        In 2009, the FBI requested $9.8 million for FBI Academy
    instruction. Does this funding satisfy all your needs or is
    this just meeting the minimum?
        Mr. Mueller. Our buildings we have at Quantico for agents
    and the like are 40 years old at this juncture. We have gotten
    funds in past years to upgrade them, but it is certainly not
    enough.
        We have additional demands, as I indicated in my remarks,
    and we've doubled the number of investigative or intelligence
    analysts. They need to be trained and that has put a demand on
    the facilities at the FBI Academy.
        One of the crown jewels of the Bureau is the National
    Academy and the training that is done for not only State and
    local law enforcement, but also international law enforcement.
    There have been demands to expand our classes, both for State
    and local, as well as, international, and so we have additional
    demands, as well as, a relatively old structure that we would
    like to expand our capabilities of the FBI Academy to address
    these demands but also we have to continue to upgrade our
    facilities to meet our training needs.
        An example is as we get enhanced technology in the Bureau,
    the buildings are 40 years old and do not have the wiring that
    enables us to put in the classified networks that we need to
    provide the instruction for both our analysts, as well as, our
    agents.

                           CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE

        Senator Shelby. The national cyber security initiative. I
    don't know what you can talk about here. We might need a
    classified briefing, Mr. Director, but to talk about the role
    of the national cyber security initiative, why it's important
    and also the resources. Is that more a place for a classified
    hearing than this?
        Mr. Mueller. I think I can talk generally about this
    initiative and then if it would be helpful, we can certainly go
    to a different session.
        The challenge of protecting the variety of networks,
    Government and private, is going to be increased over the
    years. We have the example that you mentioned, Madam Chairwoman
    in Estonia recently where it was subject to a wave of cyber
    attacks which could happen not only to Estonia but around the
    world.
        We have the responsibility to prevent and investigate the
    attacks within the United States. Most often, attacks do not
    occur within our borders but from outside our borders, which
    requires the integration of our experts with experts from other
    countries and the use of our legal attaches.
        In the last year or so, we have joined with our
    counterparts at the National Security Administration (NSA),
    Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland
    Security to put together what is called the national cyber
    investigative joint task force which has us working in an
    integrated fashion to address these threats.
        We need to build on our capabilities, as well as, the
    capabilities of the Government overall. We have requested 211
    positions and $39 million in this budget to address the
    challenges we see from the threat of cyber attacks.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby, we are going to have a
    classified conversation about this rather than a formal hearing
    in which you and I and others can participate.
        I discussed this with Director Mueller yesterday. There are
    things that really are said elsewhere and last week, Senator
    Stevens presided over a DOD hearing on the DOD aspects. This is
    a pretty big deal.
        Interestingly enough, Business Week this week has a whole--
    that's their front page about the possible attacks on corporate
    networks which, of course, have significant effect, financial
    networks, et cetera.
        So, we're going to hold a conversation with you to make
    sure that we're on the right track in terms of technology,
    workforce, while the administration works out a complicated
    governance approach.
        Also, if you would like to have an additional classified
    conversation on the Render Safe Program, we would want to
    cooperate with you on arranging it. It's really needed.
        Senator Stevens, we're happy to see you today.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. I've got other hearings going
    on. My neighbor is here, but I wondered about the concept of
    the arrangements the FBI has with the Department of Homeland
    Security.
        It seems to me we're spreading this whole thing across the
    Government now. We had the hearing on DOD, as you said. We're
    having one on Homeland Security.
        Are you sharing across the board now in terms of these
    operations? You relate to a certain extent with Homeland
    Security, right?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir. Whether it be the cyber initiative
    where we have roles, we work with Department of Homeland
    Security on the national cyber investigative joint task force
    that I just mentioned, but beyond that, we are working with
    Homeland Security fusion centers that have been established
    States around the country.
        We work very closely with them in terms of protecting our
    borders against terrorists. Are, I would say, across the board
    integrated with the Department of Homeland Security across the
    country.
        The last point I would mention is on joint terrorism task
    forces. We have over 100 joint terrorism task forces around the
    country now and we have members from various elements of the
    Department of Homeland Security that participate in task
    forces.
        Senator Stevens. Senator Mikulski mentioned, as a matter of
    fact, that was a classified issue. We can't talk about numbers,
    but I can tell you I was shocked with the numbers we saw, and I
    think you were, too, weren't you, Madam Chairman, in terms of
    the whole question of preparing to deal with the defense
    against cyber attacks.
        We've got a massive amount in the Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee. We've got some in Homeland Security. Do you have
    part of that cyber attack in this budget?
        Mr. Mueller. We have a piece of it, yes, and----
        Senator Stevens. We need to know how it all fits together
    and how much it really is, if it's stretched so far, is what
    I'm asking.
        Mr. Mueller. We have a piece of it and we have worked with
    others in the community to set out a 5-year plan for what we
    need to build to address this particular threat.
        Senator Stevens. Would it be proper to suggest that maybe
    one of these days we should have a classified hearing with all
    three there----
        Senator Mikulski. You know,----
        Senator Stevens [continuing]. To discuss this in depth?
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. I absolutely do. We
    encouraged Director McConnell, the head of the DNI, to meet
    separately with the appropriators involved with this.
        For those of us on the Intel Committee, we got an overall
    picture and we were concerned exactly what you're raising,
    Senator. How does it all fit together? How do we sequence what
    we need to fund because you don't fund everything at the same
    time, and then the overall question, sir, about who is in
    charge?
        But I think, why don't we cooperate with Senator Byrd and
    Senator Inouye and the ranking members and let's have a
    conversation about this?
        Senator Stevens. I hope you understand what we're saying.
    We--I believe we want redundancy and I do believe we want
    everyone involved to use their expertise, but the problem is,
    is do we have an overlapping of funding that is warranted?
        I tell you, if you saw the figures we saw projected out for
    the next 5 years, it was a substantial increase that we're
    looking at, and I don't know, we haven't got yours for that 5-
    year period, but I do hope we can find some way to be assured
    that the money follows the assignment responsibility that we
    don't have a duplication of funding occurring without intention
    to do so and just not really realizing how much jointness there
    is in this operation.
        Mr. Mueller. I think----
        Senator Stevens. I'm talking about cyber now.
        Mr. Mueller. Right. We're talking about cyber. The Director
    of the DNI, Admiral McConnell, would be very willing to sit
    down with Mike Chertoff, myself and others to explain and lay
    out exactly how the pieces come together.
        I do understand substantial funding----
        Senator Mikulski. Do you want to do that?
        Senator Stevens. Yes. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens. That's my answer.

                                    SENTINEL

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Stevens.
        We will pick up on this because it's not only the money but
    it also goes to what needs to be done when, by whom, and who's
    in charge, number 1, and number 2, who will provide the
    technological assurances that we don't--that it's a boon, not a
    boondoggle. So, we don't need to go into that here.
        I want to raise, though, something that was a boondoggle
    that we turned into a boon which goes to our favorite program
    of the Sentinel. If I could, I'd like to focus on some of the
    oversight issues.
        Some years ago, this subcommittee was faced, as you were,
    where the fact that the attempt to develop an electronic case
    management system called Trilogy became deeply troubled and
    dysfunctional. We then moved to a new effort called the
    Sentinel.
        This is a very important tool because right after 9/11, the
    case management issues were not only what did we know and when
    did we know it but did we know how to connect the dots and
    that's why we looked for a new case management system. It
    wasn't only to be cool and groovy with electronics and be
    paperless, it was to have a better chase.
        So, having said that, while we're here today to stand
    sentry on the Sentinel. So, could you tell us where we are and
    how is the progress coming?
        Mr. Mueller. As you point out, in the wake of September
    11th, we had a contract to complete that had been started
    before September 11th called Trilogy. It was called Trilogy
    because there were three legs to the stool. Two of them were
    successful; that is, the networks themselves and other aspects
    of putting in place the infrastructure. What was not successful
    was the third leg of the stool and that was the software.
        We had to make a very difficult decision and say we could
    not go forward on that and, as you point out, it was replaced
    by Sentinel, which is contracted by Lockheed Martin, is a
    forward-based system.
        Phase 1 was successfully deployed in June 2007 and with the
    lessons from the deployment of phase 1, we have gone to what is
    called an incremental development strategy for phases 2 through
    4.
        We have had 12 builds since June on phase 1 which is part
    of that incremental development strategy, and phase 2 is on
    schedule and within planned costs.
        As an aside, I would say that the FBI and Lockheed Martin
    deployed phase 1 on budget and a few weeks late, but phase 2 is
    on schedule and currently within planned costs. Indeed, on
    April 4, we delivered the Enterprise Portal, which is a key
    component of the Sentinel project.
        I meet with CEO Bob Stevens of Lockheed Martin quarterly to
    make certain that this program is on track. Others who are much
    more involved in the program on a daily basis meet with their
    counterparts at Lockheed Martin regularly to make certain it is
    on track. I don't think there's another program that has more
    oversight than Sentinel from the inspector general, the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Congress.
        I'm confident at this juncture that we are proceeding as we
    should be on this project, but I welcome the scrutiny and am
    happy to brief anyone on where we are to make certain that you
    also share that confidence that I have that we are on track.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we understand from GAO that they
    say that Sentinel is on track and also on budget. So, it's on
    track in terms of its technology development, but we're also
    concerned that some of the most difficult parts lie ahead which
    is the conversion of case files from the old database to
    Sentinel.
        We just encourage you to really stand your continued
    vigilance on this because I think now we're also moving to some
    of the really tough parts and those that will determine the
    efficacy of its operation.
        Mr. Mueller. May I add one comment on that,----
        Senator Mikulski. Sure.
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Madam Chairwoman. We have been
    focused and rightfully so on Trilogy and also Sentinel, but
    since September 11th, we recognize the necessity of putting
    information relating to counterterrorism into a searchable
    database. In the wake of September 11th, we developed what was
    called the investigative data warehouse for our
    counterterrorism information. This database has been built up
    over time, and is a different database than that which had
    supported our case structure before. It is the latest in terms
    of technology and gives us the capability to connect the dots
    in the counterterrorism arena, similar to what we're moving to
    overall with Sentinel.
        So, we have not stood by waiting for the development of
    Sentinel but have put into place the mechanism a number of
    years ago to meet that shortfall.
        One last point on information technology, if I could. We
    have in the last year put out approximately 20,000 Blackberries
    to our agents, analysts, and others that enable us to be on the
    cutting edge of communication and capability to accomplish our
    mission.
        In the next year or so, we will be putting in almost 25,000
    UNeT computers, which is the Internet. As you know, we operate
    at the secret level but everybody should have Internet
    capability on their desk as opposed to having to go down to
    some other work station. We have already put in 12,000 those
    UNeT units. In 2008, we're going to put in another 14,000. By
    the end of 2009, everybody will have UNeT capability.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I'm glad you brought all of that
    up. You know, when we think of the FBI, we think of agents,
    then we think of analysts, then we think of linguists. We don't
    think of the incredible support that we need to provide to our
    very talented and dedicated people who, I'll say, are in the
    street, whether that's Baghdad or Baltimore or whatever, but
    you need to have the kind of support staff, like I know you
    hired a chief information officer, and isn't that when we began
    to kind of right the ship on Sentinel and some others? Then
    that person needs to have the support.
        So, when we look at your appropriations, it's not only, you
    know, how many agents and do they have the guns and all of that
    is important, but you also need to have these other highly
    technical people to make sure that our agents, analysts, et
    cetera, are right resourced, isn't this right?
        Mr. Mueller. Absolutely. Since September 11th, we have had
    to put in place a chief information officer office and bring on
    board the talent and the capabilities to do that. We needed an
    architecture that would span the Bureau as a whole. We needed
    to develop a Government structure so that you identify and
    prioritize the particular projects that you're going to
    undertake as an organization.
        We've made substantial strides, but I will tell you we
    still have, we still have gaps that we need to fill in terms of
    providing the infrastructure, and the IT that the Bureau needs.
    We're working hard to fill those gaps, but I would be remiss if
    I thought that we were there. We've made a lot of strides but
    we've got a ways to go.

                              TERRORIST WATCH LIST

        Senator Mikulski. Which takes me to--I've got about two
    more questions--the terrorist watch list. The inspector general
    has identified concerns about the terrorist watch list and
    going back then to those dark days after 9/11 and the 9/11
    Commission, the Intel Committee's investigations, one of the
    things, issues that emerged was the efficacy of our watch
    lists, and according to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
    inspector general, he has identified serious flaws in the FBI
    terror watch list and also DOJ, Department of Justice, which
    means a real time lag in putting terrorists on the watch list
    and then also because of identical names or complexity, getting
    good people off of that watch list.
        Could you tell us your response to the inspectors general
    flashing yellow lights on this?
        Mr. Mueller. Let me start by saying that I believe the
    watch list is a success story. I believe it was 12 agencies who
    had separate watch lists. Since 2003 we have pulled together
    those 12 agencies and established a watch list procedure. A
    nomination process for international nominees come from the
    National Counterterrorism Center and domestic nominees come
    from the FBI.
        It has been successfully in operation, integrated with
    Border and Customs individuals, the State Department, as well
    as State and local law enforcement.
        The inspector general report did point out deficiencies in
    two areas and I will just single out those two areas. In the
    nomination process, the inspector general indicated that the
    FBI had established appropriate procedures for nominating,
    appropriate criteria for nominations, and appropriate quality
    controls.
        The inspector general did point out that we were not
    updating our watch list entries as fast as we should and there
    were field offices that had submitted incomplete and/or
    inaccurate information. The inspector general looked at a
    number of organizations, as well as ours, and pointed out those
    deficiencies.
        We have put into place software fixes and additional
    training to address these concerns. Of the 18 recommendations
    that the inspector general had, the FBI has closed 4 and we are
    waiting for another 12 to get approved from the inspector
    general.
        One last point I'd make on the other aspect that you
    mentioned, the redress issues relating to a watch list.
    Recommendation was made that we put together a multiagency
    working group to address that. In September 2007, put together
    and had signed off by each of the contributing agencies an
    memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would establish and did
    establish a redress officer in every one of the agencies and a
    unit in every one of the agencies to address that.
        There is still a backlog, but we have in place the
    mechanism that we need in my mind in each of the agencies to
    assure swifter redress so those persons who should not be on
    the watch list are taken off the watch list.
        As I said, of the 18 recommendations that the inspector
    general has made, 16 of those are on the verge of being
    completed and there are 2 that we're still working on.

                        FIGHTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much. I think with
    that, it gives us the assurance that, number 1, you take the
    inspector general concerns seriously and as we've talked about,
    both at this hearing and also in other conversations with you,
    that those issues that the inspector general did raise, that
    you, through your team, have addressed them. So, we do
    appreciate that.
        I just have one general area I'd like to come back to. You
    know, the crimes against children. It really took my breath
    away to hear about something called a joint task force on child
    prostitution, and I know Senator Shelby has just been a
    fantastic colleague and ally on issues related to trafficking,
    the child predator thing even in other parts of this
    appropriation, implementation of the Adam Walsh bill.
        We know that the FBI was given some time ago, even at the
    dawn of the Internet, the responsibility for dealing with child
    predators on the Internet.
        Could you just tell us what basically are you--are the
    programs you're responsible for the protection of children and
    do you feel that you need more support in this? Because I tell
    you, it just--you know, it seems that there's no end to how
    vile the world can be.
        Mr. Mueller. Well, this is a daunting problem. We could
    probably take all of our agents and still have work to do in
    terms of addressing the exploitation of children in a variety
    of horrific ways.
        I mentioned child prostitution, the task forces that we
    have addressing that. Human trafficking of persons, often
    children, is one aspect of that and you are knowledgeable about
    the FBI's Innocent Images Program which is where much of the
    work is initiated, particularly the international work is
    accomplished out of the task force up in Maryland.
        We currently have almost 270 agents who are working on
    Innocent Images cases. We have a total of 5,300 Innocent Images
    cases which are child pornography, the child predators on the
    Internet. We have on the international task force that we
    established in 2004, we have worked with 47 separate
    investigators from 21 different countries to address child
    pornography and child predators on the Internet.
        Senator Mikulski. Do they come to the Calverton facility
    for training?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, they come to the Calverton facility and
    work on a task force shoulder to shoulder with the FBI.
        Senator Mikulski. Do they get training there, too?
        Mr. Mueller. Trained, and as we work together, we train
    together, then we work cases together. We recently had a case
    of a group of child predators on the Internet. We arrested
    persons in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States,
    and other European countries. They had believed that they were
    free from the scrutiny of law enforcement by encrypting their
    files. They had something like 15,000 child pornographic files
    that had been encrypted. This case and it was emblematic of the
    work that we need to do internationally with our counterparts
    to address problems such as this.
        So internationally and domestically, we have put what
    resources we can to address a problem that is growing.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we want to do all we can for you to
    be supported not only at the Calverton effort but in these task
    forces. You know, if you say to the American people, the
    taxpayer, I mean, they would want us to make this a priority.
        So, we have other questions, but we will submit them for
    the record.
        Senator Shelby, do you have any others?
        Senator Shelby. I have no further questions. I'm just glad
    to hear from the Director.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, we're glad to hear from you,
    Director. We thank you for your candor and for your forthcoming
    in answering our questions, and we thank you and look forward
    to working with you as we put together both this 2009
    appropriation as well as the supplemental because some of the
    issues will be addressed there.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions, the Senators may submit
    additional questions, we ask for the FBI to respond within 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 Patrick J. Leahy
                                  bullet lead
        Question. More than four months ago, in a letter I sent to you that
    remains unanswered, I expressed my concerns that flawed bullet lead
    analysis done by the FBI for many years may have led to wrongful
    convictions. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2005
    discrediting bullet lead analysis, and the FBI stopped conducting
    bullet lead testing that same year. Over the last two years, however,
    the Justice Department has not taken steps to find or correct the cases
    where it was misused. As a former judge, I am sure you share my fear
    that this faulty forensic evidence may have been introduced in the
    estimated 2,500 cases where it was used. In my letter in November, I
    asked you to provide the Judiciary Committee with the list of cases
    where FBI bullet lead analysis was used, and to advise the Committee
    what steps you've taken to correct any unjust convictions resulting
    from bullet lead analysis.
        Please state whether you have taken any action in response to my
    letter and explain your response.
        Answer. As is discussed in more detail in the response to your
    November 2007 letter to the Attorney General, in 2005 the FBI sent to
    the National District Attorney's Association, the National Association
    of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Innocence Project, and approximately
    300 agencies letters outlining the FBI's decision to discontinue these
    examinations. The letters were sent so the recipients could take
    whatever steps they deemed appropriate to ensure no one was convicted
    based on inappropriate bullet lead testimony.
        The FBI has committed to review all testimony provided by FBI
    Laboratory personnel in bullet lead cases that resulted in convictions
    in order to determine whether they testified within the scope of the
    science. Because the FBI performed bullet lead examinations for
    approximately 40 years, we cannot readily produce a list of all cases
    in which bullet lead analysis was performed. Because FBI laboratory
    personnel who conducted bullet lead examinations also conducted other
    types of forensic tests, the FBI has to examine all files worked by the
    universe of examiners who conducted bullet lead analysis. That process
    is ongoing. As of mid-May 2008, the FBI had identified approximately
    1,270 cases (covering the period of 1975 to 2004) in which bullet lead
    analyses resulted in ``positive'' results that may possibly have formed
    the basis of trial testimony.
        As the FBI Director has testified, the FBI will be working with the
    Innocence Project (IP) to ensure all appropriate parties are notified.
    Specifically, as the FBI identifies cases in which bullet lead analysis
    was performed, we will provide to the IP the FBI file number, the names
    of the contributor and prosecutor and their contact information,
    contributor and prosecutor file numbers, the FBI Laboratory examiner's
    name, the defendant's name, and the FBI's assessment of the
    appropriateness of the testimony provided. The FBI will also offer the
    IP copies of the transcripts received from prosecutors. By providing a
    dual notification track (that is, notification to both the prosecutor
    and the IP), the FBI is confident that appropriate notification will
    made to any defendant who was or may have been adversely affected by
    inappropriate FBI bullet lead testimony.
        Question. When can I expect a response to my letter?
        Answer. DOJ is completing its response to the letter and will be
    transmitted to your office presently.
        Question. According to press accounts, the FBI agreed in November
    to provide a list of all cases where bullet lead analysis was used to
    the Innocence Project in order to begin working to identify cases where
    there may be problems.
        Please state whether you support this collaborative effort and
    explain your response.
        Answer. In an FBI press release on November 17, 2007, the FBI
    announced that it has undertaken an additional round of outreach,
    analysis, and review efforts concerning bullet lead analysis. This has
    included joint work with the Innocence Project, which has done legal
    research to identify criminal cases in which bullet lead analysis has
    been introduced at trial.
        The Department of Justice, including the FBI, takes this issue very
    seriously, and we are developing procedures to ensure that appropriate
    disclosures are made to the relevant parties. Thereafter, the parties
    involved can make an assessment of the effect of any potentially
    erroneous testimony.
        Question. Has anyone in the Justice Department taken any steps to
    support or oppose this agreement between the FBI and the Innocence
    Project?
        Answer. Please see the response to subpart a, above.

                              UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

        Question. As of May last year, the Justice Department reported to
    the Judiciary Committee that there was only one FBI agent assigned to
    Iraq and one assigned to Kuwait to investigate significant contracting
    fraud. Since May 2007, has the Justice Department assigned more full-
    time FBI agents or other federal investigators to work on contracting
    fraud cases in Iraq and Afghanistan? If not, why not?
        Answer. The FBI currently has Special Agents (SAs) deployed in
    Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait to provide full-time support to the
    International Contract Corruption Initiative, which addresses major
    fraud and corruption in the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. These deployments are conducted in 120-day rotation cycles
    and SAs work jointly with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service,
    Army Criminal Investigation Command Major Procurement Fraud Unit,
    Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, and U.S. Agency for
    International Development, who also have agents deployed to address
    this crime problem. The FBI's overseas assignments in direct support of
    this multi-agency initiative are as follows: one SA in Kuwait; one
    Assistant Legal Attache and two SAs in Iraq; and two SAs in
    Afghanistan.
        Question. In November, I sent you a letter expressing my concerns
    that flawed bullet lead analysis done by the FBI for many years may
    have led to wrongful convictions. As you know, the National Academy of
    Sciences issued a report in 2005 discrediting bullet lead analysis, and
    the FBI stopped conducting bullet lead testing that same year. But over
    the last two years, the Justice Department has not taken steps to find
    or correct the cases where it was misused. As a former judge, I am sure
    you share my fear that this faulty forensic evidence may have been
    introduced in the estimated 2,500 cases where it was used. Two months
    ago, I asked you to provide the Judiciary Committee with the list of
    cases where FBI bullet lead analysis was used, and to advise the
    Committee what steps you've taken to correct any unjust convictions
    resulting from bullet lead analysis. When can I expect a response to my
    letter? Have you taken any action in response to my letter?
        Answer. Please see the response to Question 1, above.
        Question. According to press accounts, the FBI agreed in November
    to provide a list of where all bullet lead analysis was used to the
    Innocence Project in order to begin working to identify cases where
    there may be problems. Do you support this collaborative effort? Has
    anyone in the Justice Department taken any steps to support or oppose
    this agreement between the FBI and the Innocence Project?
        Answer. Please see the response to Question 2, above.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                             TRIBAL JUSTICE FUNDING

        Question. The Justice Department dedicated 102 Federal Bureau of
    Investigations agents to investigate violent crimes in Indian country
    in 1998. Congress provided funding for an additional 30 agents in
    fiscal year 1999, and an additional 27 agents in fiscal year 2005. As a
    result of these appropriations, there should be 159 FBI agents
    dedicated to violent crime in Indian country. However, there are only
    114 FBI agents dedicated to Indian country today. Can you please
    explain this discrepancy?
        Answer. As of June 2008, there are 104 FBI Special Agents working
    on Indian Country (IC) matters. Of this total, 30 were appropriated in
    fiscal year 1997, 30 in fiscal year 1999, and 10 in fiscal year 2005
    (the FBI's fiscal year 2005 appropriation included 27 positions, 10 of
    which were Special Agents). The remaining 34 Special Agents currently
    working IC matters have been assigned by their respective field offices
    to address specific IC issues.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                           PAY AND BENEFITS OVERSEAS

        Question. What efforts has the Department of Justice taken to
    ensure retention of its best and brightest, particularly in the
    enforcement agencies out in the field and those agents and employees
    working outside the United States?
        Answer. While Department of Justice law enforcement officials
    working outside the United States may be eligible for certain
    additional pay or benefits based on the location, the retention
    incentives available to those employees are the same as the incentives
    available to those located in the United States.
        The FBI continues to use the authorities it received in the 2005
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, some of which expire at the end of
    2009, to better compete with private industry and improve attrition
    rates. These authorities include recruitment, relocation, and retention
    incentives, student loan repayment, and the University Education
    Program. Recruitment bonuses allow the FBI to competitively recruit
    employees who possess special qualifications for hard-to-fill FBI
    positions, relocation bonuses increase the number of employees
    interested in hard-to-fill positions within the FBI by, in effect,
    reducing the employee's relocation costs, and retention allowances are
    used to retain current employees who possess high-level or unique
    qualifications or who fill critical FBI needs. Retention allowances may
    be provided on either an individual or group basis to help the FBI
    retain certain employees or categories of employees, such as
    intelligence analysts and police officers.
        The FBI has also used education benefits to improve the quality and
    job satisfaction of our workforce. For example, in order to improve our
    recruitment and retention of Intelligence Analysts, the FBI repaid 359
    student loans for these employees in fiscal year 2007. The FBI has also
    used the University Education Program to fund tuition expenses for
    current employees seeking to obtain certifications and academic
    degrees, approving payments for 679 participants in fiscal year 2008.
        Question. Is danger pay provided to agents and DOJ employees
    actively working along the Southwest Border?
        Answer. The FBI's Legal Attache (Legat) office in Mexico maintains
    a presence in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey, but does not
    maintain a permanent presence along the Southwest Border. Currently,
    neither FBI employees assigned to the Mexico City Legat nor those
    assigned in the United States near the Southwest Border are afforded
    danger pay. It is the FBI's understanding that DEA personnel working in
    Mexico have been eligible to receive a danger pay allowance of 15
    percent of basic pay since approximately 1991. In April 2008 the FBI's
    Mexico City Legat asked FBI Headquarters to consider affording danger
    pay to all FBI personnel in Mexico based on the hostile environment in
    Mexico, including threats from organized crime fugitives, rebels, and
    terrorist groups, as well as street and residential crimes. This
    request is under review.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee stands in recess
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Senator.
        [Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., Wednesday, April 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2009

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        [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 2009 budget request for programs
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

                             DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr. (U.S. Navy,
       Ret.), Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and

                                 Administrator

        Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, 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 2009 budget request for NOAA.
        The fiscal year 2009 President's budget supports NOAA's priority to
    advance mission-critical services. The fiscal year 2009 request is $4.1
    billion, which represents a $202 million or 5.2 percent increase over
    the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 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 2009 budget request, I
    would like to briefly highlight some of NOAA's notable successes from
    the past fiscal year (2007).

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

    NOAA is Major Contributor to Nobel Prize-Winning Intergovernmental
            Panel on Climate Change Reports
        Scientists from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory were among
    those sharing in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The scientists were
    recognized for their contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was created in 1988 by the World
    Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program
    to provide regular assessments for policymakers of the scientific,
    technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. IPCC has
    produced its major assessments every five to six years since 1990.
        NOAA scientists served as contributors to and government reviewers
    of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
    Laboratory provided model runs that enhanced the projections used in
    the IPCC report.

    Magnuson-Stevens Act Implementation
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Reauthorization Act of 2007 was signed into law on January 12, 2007.
    The reauthorized Act contains significant new provisions to end
    overfishing, promote market-based approaches to fisheries management,
    improve the science used in fisheries management, improve recreational
    data collection, enhance international cooperation in fisheries
    management, and address illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing,
    as well as bycatch of protected living marine resources. Especially
    notable is the requirement to establish an annual catch limit for each
    fishery, which for the first time creates a mandate with a timetable to
    end overfishing.

    Progress on Next Generation Geostationary Satellite Program
        Geostationary satellites remain the weather sentinels for NOAA. The
    next-generation geostationary satellite series, GOES-R, will provide
    new and improved atmospheric, climatic, solar, and space data. In 2007,
    NOAA revised the management and acquisition strategy for the GOES-R
    program, partnering more closely with NASA to take advantage of each
    agency's technical expertise. In February 2007, the Advanced Baseline
    Imager, the main instrument on GOES-R, completed a key milestone,
    enabling the contractor to begin building the first instrument.
    Throughout 2007, NOAA awarded the three remaining instrument contracts
    for the Solar Ultraviolet Imager, Extreme Ultra Violet and X-Ray
    Irradiance Sensors, and Geostationary Lightning Mapper. These
    instruments will help us to understand and forecast solar disturbances
    as well as track lightning strikes from space.

    NOAA's National Weather Service Provides More Specific Warning
            Information for Severe Weather
        NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) began issuing more
    geographically specific warnings for tornadoes, severe thunderstorms,
    floods, and marine hazards on October 1, 2007. The new ``storm-based
    warnings'' allow forecasters to pinpoint the specific area where severe
    weather threats are highest, thereby reducing the area warned by as
    much as 70 percent when compared to the previously used county-by-
    county warning system. Storm-based warnings are displayed graphically
    and are extremely adaptable to cell phones, PDAs, and the Internet. The
    Emergency Alert System (EAS) is geared toward counties and NOAA Weather
    Radio (NWR) All Hazards will still sound an alarm if there is a warning
    anywhere in a county. However, text and audio messages will provide
    more specific information about the location of the storm in the
    county, and the direction in which it is moving. Storm-based warnings
    will reference landmarks such as highways, shopping centers, and parks,
    and will use directional delimiters to indicate county location.

    Fleet Modernization Moves Ahead
        In June 2007, NOAA celebrated the keel laying of NOAA ships BELL M.
    SHIMADA and FERDINAND R. HASSLER in Moss Point, Mississippi. This
    marked the first time NOAA has celebrated this important construction
    milestone for two ships simultaneously. HENRY B. BIGELOW, second of the
    four fisheries survey vessels of the same class being built by VT
    Halter Marine, was commissioned into the fleet in July before beginning
    operations in New England. In September, Phase I of conversion of NOAA
    Ship OKEANOS EXPLORER (formerly USNS CAPABLE) to an ocean exploration
    ship was completed. NOAA ship PISCES was christened in December and
    subsequently launched in Moss Point, Mississippi.

    New State-of-the-Art Satellite Operations Facility Officially Opened
        In June 2007, NOAA and the General Services Administration
    officially opened the new state-of-the-art NOAA Satellite Operations
    Facility (NSOF). NSOF is the new home for NOAA's around-the-clock
    environmental satellite operations, which provides data critical for
    weather and climate prediction. NSOF supports more than $50 million of
    high technology equipment, including 16 antennas monitoring the
    operations of 16 on-orbit satellites.

    National Water Level Observation Network Upgraded to Real-time Status
        The National Ocean Service (NOS) completed a three-year effort to
    upgrade the technology of its National Water Level Observation Network
    (NWLON). NWLON stations provide mariners, first responders, and the
    public with real-time tide and water-level information. A major benefit
    of the upgrade is that network stations normally equipped to transmit
    water-level and other environmental data at hourly increments via NOAA
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites now transmit data
    every six minutes, thus enabling users to access data more quickly.

    NOAA Aids in the Recovery of Fisheries and Fishing Communities Damaged
            by Hurricanes
        NOAA funded and conducted a number of activities aimed at helping
    Gulf Coast fisheries recover from the devastating impacts of Hurricanes
    Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, which struck the Gulf Coast in 2005. The
    states are using these funds to restore and rehabilitate oyster,
    shrimp, and other marine fishery habitats damaged or destroyed by
    hurricane events, and to conduct cooperative research and monitoring
    and other activities designed to recover and rebuild Gulf of Mexico
    fisheries and fishing communities.

    NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards Activities: Meeting the Expectations of
            the Nation for Weather and All Hazard Warning Information
        NOAA's National Weather Service added 16 broadcast stations to the
    NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) All Hazards network in 2007. In addition to
    achieving 100 percent coverage of high-risk areas, NOAA refurbished 62
    broadcast stations with technology upgrades that significantly improved
    reliability and availability, while decreasing maintenance costs. This
    allows the network to meet expectations of availability as the nation's
    weather and all hazard warning system.
        NWR is a reliable and inexpensive means of communicating weather,
    hazard, and emergency information directly to the public. The network
    infrastructure consists of 986 broadcast stations covering 98 percent
    of the nation's population and has the ability to deliver messages to
    individuals monitoring their own receivers as well as the ability to
    reach millions of listeners and viewers through the Emergency Alert
    System, which is monitored by television and radio license holders. The
    network is required to broadcast to all areas of the United States
    identified as being at high risk of experiencing severe weather and to
    sustain a high level of reliability and maintainability in those areas.

    Marine Reserves Established in Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary
        In 2007, NOS established the Federal portion of the marine reserves
    and conservation area network within the Channel Islands National
    Marine Sanctuary. This is the largest network of marine reserves in
    Federal waters in the continental United States. This action
    complements the State of California's established network of marine
    reserves and conservation areas within the State waters of the
    sanctuary in 2003.

    Expanding U.S. Tsunami Preparedness
        NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) is responsible for the
    expansion of the U.S. network of tsunami detection sensors. During
    2007, 14 Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis
    (DARTTM) buoys were established: four in the Western Pacific
    Ocean, three off the Pacific Coast of Central America, five in the
    northwestern Pacific Ocean, and two in the North Atlantic Ocean,
    bringing the total number of U.S. DARTTM stations to 34. The
    United States, with NOAA as lead agency, is currently working with
    approximately 70 countries, the European Commission, and over 50 non-
    governmental agencies in planning and implementing the Global Earth
    Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which includes a global tsunami
    warning system. In addition, NWS works with communities to prepare for
    tsunamis through the TsunamiReadyTM Program. As of December
    12, 2007, there are 47 TsunamiReadyTM sites in 10 states,
    Puerto Rico, and Guam. The National Weather Service reached its goal of
    recognizing 10 new TsunamiReadyTM communities in fiscal year
    2007.

    First Buoy to Measure Acidification Launched
        The first buoy to directly monitor ocean acidification was launched
    in the Gulf of Alaska. Ocean acidification is a result of carbon
    dioxide absorbed by the ocean. The new buoy, part of a National Science
    Foundation project awarded to PMEL and the University of Washington in
    Seattle, in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the
    Institute of Ocean Sciences in British Columbia, measures the air-sea
    exchange of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen gas, in addition to
    the pH (a measure of ocean acidity) of the surface waters. The buoy is
    anchored in water nearly 5,000 meters deep and transmits data via
    satellite. Rising acidity in the ocean could have a detrimental effect
    on ocean organisms, with resulting impacts on ocean life and the food
    chain.

    NOAA Ships Arrive at New Home Port in Hawaii
        NOAA ships OSCAR ELTON SETTE, HI'IALAKAI, and KA'IMIMOANA relocated
    to their new home port at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, heralding
    the permanent presence of NOAA on Ford Island. This was a major
    milestone in the multi-year, multi-phase construction of the NOAA
    Pacific Regional Center, a project to consolidate NOAA programs and
    operations on the island of Oahu into a single facility on Ford Island.

    NOAA's Open Rivers Initiative Completes First Projects
        In its first year, NOAA's Open Rivers Initiative completed three
    projects that restored over 30 miles of spawning and rearing habitat
    for migratory fish. The obsolete Brownsville Dam, located on the
    Calapooia River in Oregon, was removed in August 2007, effectively
    eliminating an obstruction to migratory fish and a safety hazard to the
    local human community. In California, two failing and undersized
    culverts were removed, allowing endangered salmon to reach their
    historic spawning and rearing grounds. In collaboration with local
    communities, NOAA's Open Rivers Initiative will continue to restore
    free fish passage to historic habitat by removing obsolete dams and
    barriers that dot the rivers of coastal states.

    Delivering Real-Time Data to Help Shellfish Growers
        Shellfish growers in the Pacific Northwest can now get near real-
    time water quality data from the System-wide Monitoring Program
    operating at National Estuarine Research Reserves in Alaska,
    Washington, and Oregon. The data are available through telemetering
    capabilities, which measure, receive, and transmit data automatically
    from distant sources. Water quality data can be viewed on a Web site
    jointly sponsored by NOS and the Northwest Association of Networked
    Ocean Observing Systems (http://www.nanoos-shellfish.org/). Water
    quality and weather data are transmitted every 30 minutes via satellite
    from monitoring stations at all 27 National Estuarine Research
    Reserves, providing information to the growing Integrated Ocean
    Observing System (IOOS).

    Great Lakes Lab Recognized for ``Green'' Research Vessels
        NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL)
    converted a fleet of research vessels from petroleum-based to 100
    percent bio-based fuel and lubricants, earning a White House Closing-
    the-Circle Award in the green purchasing category. GLERL operates
    research vessels throughout the Great Lakes region as scientific
    platforms for ecosystems research and other NOAA interests in the area.
    The conversion was a result of a call for ``greening'' of Government
    agencies through waste reduction, recycling, and the use of
    environmentally friendly and sustainable products including bio-
    products.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST HIGHLIGHTS

    Supporting the President's Ocean Initiative
        Building on last year's investment in Ocean Initiative related
    activities, the fiscal year 2009 President's request includes new
    increases of $49.1 million for NOAA over the fiscal year 2008
    President's request to support the President's Ocean Initiative. This
    ocean initiative includes more funding to advance ocean science and
    research; protect and restore marine and coastal areas; and ensure
    sustainable use of ocean resources.
        New investments in ocean science are aimed at monitoring and better
    understanding marine ecosystems. Increased funding of $7.0 million is
    included for the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to support
    Data Management and Communications, Regional Observations, and the Data
    Assembly Center (DAC), which delivers real-time, quality controlled
    data from NOAA and regional observing systems. An increase of $1
    million is requested to manage the escalating size and quantity of
    hydrographic datasets collected by NOAA and other providers. This
    increase in funding will help NOAA update the nautical charts provided
    to mariners navigating on U.S. waters in a more timely fashion. In
    addition, NOAA is requesting $2 million in increased funding for the
    PORTS program, to improve and expand the delivery of real-time and
    forecasted navigation information. A recent economic benefits study of
    the Houston/Galveston PORTS program, released in May 2007, showed that
    the program brought the Houston/Galveston area significant economic
    benefits and has helped to achieve a 50 percent reduction in
    groundings.
        Projects to protect and restore valuable marine and coastal areas
    include funding of $4 million to implement the newly enacted Marine
    Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. This funding will allow
    NOAA to provide competitive grants and to develop the first Federal
    clearinghouse on marine debris. NOAA also requests increased funding of
    $5.4 million for the Open Rivers program to restore stream miles of
    fish habitat through watershed-level projects with multiple fish
    passage opportunities.
        Finally, the budget provides support to ensure sustainable access
    to seafood through the development of offshore aquaculture and better
    management of fish harvests. In direct support of new provisions of the
    MSRA, and to provide better management of fish harvests, NOAA requests
    increased funding of $31.8 million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted
    level. Of this amount, $5.1 million is requested to enhance the
    independent peer-review process for scientific data required to
    appropriately set the annual catch limits for all managed fisheries;
    $8.5 million will initiate and expand existing sampling programs and
    management procedures in order to end overfishing by 2011, as mandated
    by the MSRA; and $3.0 million will complete the final implementation
    phase of a new registry system for recreational fishermen and for-hire
    fishing vehicles. An additional $1.5 million increase is requested in
    support of deep sea coral research, allowing NOAA to begin identifying,
    understanding, and providing the information needed in order to protect
    deep coral habitats.

    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 people, integrity, excellence, teamwork, ingenuity, science,
    service, and stewardship. 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 $42.0
    million in net increases will support our workforce inflation factors,
    including $37.5 million for salaries and benefits and $4.5 million for
    non-labor-related adjustments, such as fuel costs.
        This year we have focused our increases on satellite continuity and
    operations and maintenance support for our aircraft and NOAA vessels. A
    funding increase of $242.2 million is requested to continue support of
    the Geostationary Operational Satellites (GOES) program. GOES
    satellites provide critical atmospheric, oceanic, climatic, and solar
    products supporting weather forecasting and warnings, climatologic
    analysis and prediction, ecosystems management, and safe and efficient
    public and private transportation. This increase will be used for
    continued systems engineering, development of satellite instruments,
    risk reduction activities, and transition to the systems-level
    acquisition and operations phase of the program.
        Funding of $6.1 million is also requested in support of a Major
    Repair Period for the RAINIER, NOAA's most productive hydrographic
    vessel. At 39 years old, the RAINIER requires a major capital
    investment in its mechanical and electrical systems in order to
    maintain its current operational tempo and reduce risks to personnel,
    property, and mission capability.
        Finally, NOAA requests an increase of $4.0 million in support of
    additional flight hours and operations and maintenance for our
    aircraft. The requested funds will provide an additional 1,295 flight
    hours for hurricane research, surveillance, and reconnaissance, as well
    as for other research and forecasting requirements. NOAA also asks this
    year for restoration to several of our base programs, most notably in
    the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
    These requested increases in our base accounts will allow NOAA to
    sustain on-going programs and projects at the levels recommended in the
    fiscal year 2008 President's budget.

    Improving Weather Warnings & 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 U.S. economy is sensitive to weather
    and climate. Realizing this, NOAA seeks to provide decision makers with
    key observations, analyses, predictions, and warnings for a variety of
    weather and water conditions to help protect the health, life, and
    property of the United States and its economy. Landfalling hurricanes
    are one of the most physically destructive and economically disruptive
    extreme events that impact the United States, often causing billions of
    dollars of damage in their wake. In fiscal year 2009, NOAA will
    continue to improve our hurricane research and modeling capabilities
    with a requested increase of $4.0 million for operational support and
    maintenance of the next-generation Hurricane Weather Research and
    Forecasting model and storm surge prediction system, as well as
    accelerated improvements to that system. Increased funding of $3.0
    million will support the operations and maintenance of 15 hurricane
    data buoys in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean,
    enhancing our real-time hurricane storm monitoring and observations.
    NOAA also continues to improve and maintain our weather warning
    infrastructure, with requested funding of $6.6 million to upgrade the
    Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System, the nation's weather
    and flood warning system. Increased funding of $4.8 million will be
    used to upgrade twelve NOAA Wind Profilers and to perform a tech-
    refresh on this twenty-year-old radar system. Finally, NOAA is
    requesting $2.9 million in increased funding for modernization of the
    NOAA Weather Radio network.

    Climate Monitoring & Research
        Society exists in a highly variable climate system, and major
    climatic events can impose serious consequences on society. Preliminary
    estimates of the impact of the severe drought which affected the Great
    Plains and the Eastern United States throughout 2007 are in the range
    of $5 billion, with major reductions in crop yields and low stream and
    lake levels. Continued drought and high winds in the Western United
    States in 2007 resulted in numerous wildfires, with 3,000 homes and
    over 8.9 million acres burned, and at least 12 deaths. The fiscal year
    2009 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 decision makers) with assessments of
    current and future impacts of climate events such as droughts, floods,
    and trends in extreme climate events. NOAA continues to build a suite
    of information, products, and services that will enable society to
    respond to changing climate conditions. In fiscal year 2009, NOAA will
    support the critical National Integrated Drought Information System
    with increases of $2 million to develop and bring into operation by
    fiscal year 2010 the next-generation Climate Forecast System, leading
    to improved climate forecasting products. An increase of $74 million
    will be used to develop Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System
    (CERES) and Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) climate sensors to
    preserve decades long climate data records. The CERES sensor will
    measure the Earth's radiation budget, an essential measurement for
    determining the causes of climate variability and change. The TSIS
    sensor measures the total energy of the sun falling on the Earth, a
    measurement used to identify and isolate natural solar variations that
    impact climate in contrast to other factors, such as human influences
    on climate.

    Critical Facilities Investments
        The fiscal year 2009 President's budget request also includes
    important increases for critical facilities, necessary to provide a
    safe and effective working environment for NOAA's employees.
        For fiscal year 2009, NOAA will concentrate their modernization
    efforts on three main projects. NOAA requests an increase of $40.2
    million for the continued construction of the new Pacific Region Center
    on Ford Island in Honolulu, Hawaii. This increase in funding will
    support the continued construction and renovation of two buildings,
    enabling NOAA to reduce expenditures for rent and relocate operations
    from their current location in the deteriorating Kewalo Basin and Dole
    Street Lab Facilities. An increase of $12.1 million will complete the
    design and initial preparations for a replacement facility for the
    Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Finally, $11.7 million is requested
    to support the installation of a semi-permanent replacement structure
    for the at-risk Operations Complex at the NESDIS Command and Data
    Acquisition Station in Fairbanks, Alaska. The current facility is at
    risk to experience a major structural failure in the next five years.
    The requested funding will ensure that NOAA maintains crucial mission
    operations support for the polar-orbiting satellites, as well as backup
    support for others.

                                   CONCLUSION

        NOAA's fiscal year 2009 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 2007 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 2009 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, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to present NOAA's fiscal year 2009 budget request. I am
    happy to respond to any questions the Committee may have.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                         NPOESS: CERES AND TSIS SENSORS

        Question. Although the budget includes funding for the restoration
    of the CERES and TSIS climate sensors, it has not been decided whether
    TSIS would fly on NPOESS or another satellite.
        When will a decision be made regarding which satellite TSIS will
    fly on?
        Answer. NOAA is completing a study with NASA to recommend whether
    TSIS would fly on NPOESS or another satellite. The results will be
    briefed at the next NPOESS Executive Committee (EXCOM) meeting,
    currently planned for May 2008. A decision on the platform for TSIS
    will be made shortly thereafter.
        If TSIS is placed back on NPOESS doesn't it just add more
    complexity and risk to NPOESS which was the very reason it was removed?
        Answer. The NPOESS Integrated Program Office (IPO) has concluded a
    study which determined that integrating TSIS on the first NPOESS
    satellite (C1) would not pose an appreciably higher risk to the overall
    NPOESS program should the EXCOM decide to manifest TSIS on C1.
        It is important to note that the 2006 decision to remove several
    sensors from NPOESS was made not only to reduce overall program risk,
    but also to address significant cost over-runs. The latter is not an
    issue since funding for building and adding TSIS would be coming from
    outside the NPOESS program. This helps make adding TSIS to (C1) a
    feasible option.
        The study also determined that the data requirements to command the
    TSIS instrument, and to transport the data to the appropriate ground
    processing location, are well-understood and would not add risk to the
    NPOESS command and control and data handling systems. However, since
    the priority for C1 is operational weather data continuity, there is a
    clear understanding that if a decision is made to fly TSIS on C1, the
    TSIS instrument would have to be delivered with an adequate lead time
    for integration onto the C1 spacecraft to avoid jeopardizing the 2013
    launch date. If TSIS were not delivered within this timeframe, C1 could
    potentially launch without TSIS in order to maintain operational
    weather continuity.

                         VIIRS CONTRACTOR DEFICIENCIES

        Question. In discussing the recent delays caused by the VIIRS
    issues Admiral Lautenbacher stated that he was ``extremely disappointed
    with the pace of the contractor in analyzing and closing potential
    quality, workmanship, and testing issues in the VIIRS program.''
        Could you provide specific examples of what he meant by those
    comments?
        Answer. Vice Admiral Lautenbacher's comments were based on poor
    performance of the NPOESS contractors in resolving workmanship and
    design problems that arose during the initial phases of the test
    program, current technical issues, and independent assessments of
    future work required. A summary of the key issues is provided below:
      --Insufficient time had been scheduled for test preparations;
      --Insufficient time had been scheduled to review the data generated
            from the test program;
      --Insufficient time had been scheduled to resolve problems
            highlighted by the test program;
      --Excessive use of jumper (White) wires;
      --Excessive number of Engineering Failure Reports (EFRs) remained
            open after completion of ambient phase; and
      --Inability to determine the root cause of the power supply anomaly.
        Question. What is NOAA doing to address these contractor
    deficiencies?
        Answer. In addition to addressing potential quality and or
    workmanship deficiencies on a case by case basis, the NPOESS Program
    Executive Officer, a NOAA Senior Executive, is conducting bi-monthly
    senior executive level reviews with the prime contractor and the sub-
    contractor. These executives monitor progress and ensure corporate best
    practices and resources are being applied to the program. The NPOESS
    Executive Committee (EXCOM) directed the NPOESS contractors to increase
    management oversight at the VIIRS facility. In addition to the above
    actions that were given at the January 16, 2008 EXCOM meeting, the
    following steps are being taken by the Government team:
      --In-plant oversight has been increased.
      --Independent review of the test schedule for VIIRS has continued.
      --Weekly reviews of all open/unresolved issues are being conducted.

                        OCEAN SURFACE VECTOR WINDS DATA

        Question. I recently read in Space News that NOAA was in
    discussions with the Chinese and Indian government's to gain access to
    their satellite data for ocean surface winds.
        Answer. That is correct. NOAA has enjoyed a longstanding working
    relationship with the Indian and Chinese space agencies. NOAA is
    working though our respective Embassies in Beijing and New Delhi to
    seek timely access to surface vector wind (both speed and direction)
    data from satellite scatterometers that the Chinese State Oceanic
    Administration and the Indian Space Research Organization plan to
    launch within the next two years.
        Question. Why do we have to go overseas for our weather data?
        Answer. NOAA leverages data from international partners wherever
    possible so that we can meet our higher priority needs for
    environmental observations within our budget constraints. Currently,
    there is no funded U.S. satellite in development that would carry a
    scatterometer capable of providing similar observations in the post-
    QuikSCAT era, so we are seeking access to any available observations
    from all sources.
        Question. By relying on another government's satellite will we not
    have reliability and data quality concerns?
        Answer. Our international partnership agreements include provisions
    to work with our foreign partners to achieve the greatest reliability
    and data quality possible. For example, NOAA is working with European
    Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites
    (EUMETSAT) and has been processing and evaluating vector winds from
    EUMETSAT's MetOp mission since its launch in late 2006. MetOp is
    nearing the end of its post launch testing and will be providing wind
    data for operational use shortly. However, while the reliability and
    quality of the MetOp Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) data are not a
    concern, it only provides 60 percent of the coverage that QuikSCAT
    currently offers.
        Additionally, QuikSCAT is approaching 10 years of operations. In
    light of these factors, NOAA is seeking other sources of ocean vector
    winds data. NOAA is in discussions with China and India seeking access
    to ocean vector winds data once the scheduled Chinese and Indian
    satellites have been launched. While neither China nor India have flown
    a scatterometer instrument in the past, we can anticipate a lengthy
    test and evaluation phase, during which there could be reliability and
    data quality concerns. However, since there are no funded U.S.
    satellites that would carry a scatterometer capable of providing
    observations similar to QuikSCAT in the post-QuikSCAT era, NOAA is
    seeking access to similar observations from all sources to help meet
    the need for these data.
        Question. What would we do if after signing an agreement, the
    Chinese or Indians decide to renege and not provide the data? Can we
    afford this risk?
        Answer. NOAA has had longstanding working relationships with China
    and India with full and open exchange of satellite data. NOAA will
    ensure that the agreements are directly related to protecting lives and
    property or advancing our understanding of science. NOAA will work
    closely with the U.S. Department of State to ensure that the necessary
    provisions are included in the agreements to ensure uninterrupted
    access to these data.
        Since there are no funded U.S. satellites in development that would
    carry a scatterometer capable of providing observations similar to
    QuikSCAT in the post-QuikSCAT era, NOAA is seeking access to similar
    observations from all sources. Given this situation, NOAA will have to
    assume some risk associated with a dependence on foreign sources to
    help meet the requirement for these data.
        Question. The fiscal year 2009 request includes $3 million to study
    this issue but this seems like a critical component that deserves more
    than a study that once completed will likely tell us we need another
    satellite.
        Answer. Within the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for
    NOAA there is $3 million to explore space and non space-based
    alternatives for these data and to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit
    analysis on all of the alternatives. Results from the fiscal year 2009
    studies will help us more clearly define the follow-on capabilities
    that we should invest in and the specific benefits of those
    investments.
        Question. What are the current cost estimates for replacement
    Quikscat type satellite that relies on the same technologies (i.e. the
    exact same as we have)? What would a replacement cost that has newer
    technology (i.e. an Advanced Quikscat)?
        Answer. The NOAA Office of Systems Development is conducting an
    analysis of alternatives for acquiring ocean surface wind vector
    measurements. This analysis is still being developed and will include
    an evaluation of cost, schedule, and performance trades for a number of
    options. NOAA expects this analysis to be completed by this summer.

                 VACANCY RATES AT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE

        Question. What is the vacancy rate at the National Weather Service?
        Answer. At the halfway mark through fiscal year 2008 (though March
    31, 2008), the FTE lapse rate (job vacancy rate) for the NWS is 5.1
    percent. However, the lapse rate for the Continental United States
    (CONUS) field positions, which includes Regional Headquarters (HQ),
    River Forecast Centers, and Weather Forecast Offices, is only 2.9
    percent.
        Question. What percentage of positions is being held vacant due to
    lack of funds?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2008, approximately 113 additional
    positions are projected to be held due to a lack of labor funding,
    primarily by holding NWS HQ positions vacant.
        Background: ``Labor lapse rates'' are a function of the time from
    when a field or HQ vacancy occurs to the time that position is filled.
    They can fluctuate based on job location, job requirements/duties, NOAA
    Workforce Management staffing workload and general job market
    conditions. Due to the current housing slump, the lapse rate for CONUS
    field positions is projected to be higher in fiscal year 2008.
        Question. Is the fiscal year 2009 request sufficient to eliminate
    these vacancies and fill all operational positions in a timely manner?
        Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 2009 requested restoration of $5.8
    million in Local Warnings & Forecasts (LWF) funding and $233,000 in
    Central Forecast Guidance (CFG), combined with full funding of our
    adjustments to base (ATBs) including the federal pay raise, will be
    sufficient to address these needs.
        Question. How much additional funding would be necessary to
    accomplish that?
        Answer. Please see response to the previous question; no additional
    funding is required.

                         COORDINATION OF OCEAN RESEARCH

        Question. As the lead federal agency on oceans, how does NOAA
    coordinate its efforts with NSF's research program? With other federal
    agencies?
        Answer. As evidenced by the President's establishment of the
    cabinet-level Committee on Ocean Policy (COP, created through Executive
    Order 13366 EO), the United States has an interagency approach to
    advancing ocean research. The COP provides a framework to coordinate
    the ocean and coastal related activities (including research) of over
    20 federal agencies that administer 140 laws. In addition, the EO
    mandated coordination among federal agencies with coordination and
    consultation with state, tribal and local governments; the private
    sector; foreign governments; and international organizations. NOAA
    believes that this structure has demonstrated progress on ocean
    leadership and coordination. As directed by the Oceans Act of 2000, the
    U.S. Ocean Action Plan is the President's response to the Final Report
    of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The implementation of the Ocean
    Action Plan through the coordinated interagency structure has begun to
    improve federal capacity to integrate research across jurisdictions at
    the federal, state, and non-governmental level. This new governance
    structure is still young but the Administration is committed to its
    success.
        NOAA continues to lead national ocean-related activities within the
    new, coordinated ocean governance structure outlined above.
    Specifically, NOAA has taken an active leadership role within the COP,
    the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management
    Integration (ICOSRMI), the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and
    Technology (JSOST), and the Subcommittee on Integrated Management of
    Ocean Resources (SIMOR). NOAA serves as co-chair on both the JSOST and
    SIMOR. The National Science Foundation (NSF) also serves as a co-chair
    with NOAA on the JSOST, thereby increasing interagency coordination.
    NOAA and NSF leadership are engaged in numerous task teams under JSOST
    and SIMOR bodies to guide the successful execution of activities and to
    build strong collaboration with our sister agencies.
        Together, as co-chairs of the JSOST, NOAA and NSF led the
    development of Charting the Course for Ocean Science and the Ocean
    Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy (Charting the
    Course for Ocean Science), a major milestone in federal coordination of
    ocean research. Charting the Course for Ocean Science describes the
    first ever national ocean research priorities that focus on the most
    compelling issues in key areas of interaction between society and the
    ocean. After extensive public participation, including public workshops
    and public comments, Charting the Course for Ocean Science provides
    guidance on how the various ocean science sectors (government,
    academia, industry, and non-government entities) can and should be
    engaged, individually or through partnerships, to address the areas of
    greatest research priority and opportunity. Charting the Course for
    Ocean Science identifies 21 recommendations for science and research
    needed to support six overarching societal objectives, and puts forward
    four near-term priorities.
        The Administration is now actively engaged in implementing Charting
    the Course for Ocean Science. The fiscal year 2008 President's budget
    requested $40 million ($20 million for NOAA, $17 million for NSF, and
    $3 million for USGS) to begin implementation of the four near-term
    priorities identified in Charting the course for Ocean Science
    (Assessing Meridional Overturning Current Variability: Implications for
    Rapid Climate Change (AMOC); Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem
    Organization (CAMEO); Sensors for Marine Ecosystems; and Forecasting
    the Response of Coastal Ecosystems to Persistent Forcing and Extreme
    Events). The fiscal year 2008 appropriations provided NOAA and other
    agencies a portion of the $40 million ($11.25 million). For NOAA in
    fiscal year 2008, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research has
    committed $3 million to AMOC. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) issued a call for CAMEO proposals which will be completed at the
    end of the fiscal year 2008 and will result in projects available for
    funding by NMFS and NSF in fiscal year 2009. The administration
    believes that all four priorities are important and as such NOAA is
    taking steps to address the Sensors for Marine Ecosystems and
    Forecasting the Response of Coastal Ecosystems to Persistent Forcing
    and Extreme Events priority areas. Activities planned for the near-term
    priorities are consistent with the NOAA Five-Year Research Plan, and
    all of the near-term priorities are areas in which NOAA has significant
    programmatic responsibilities.
        In the President's fiscal year 2009 budget, NOAA requests $20
    million to implement the four near-term priorities identified in
    Charting the Course for Ocean Science ($5 million for each near-term
    priority). NOAA is committed to working with the NSF, other agencies,
    and our partners to implement the priorities in Charting the Course for
    Ocean Science.
        Finally, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
    and the Director of the National Science Foundation jointly submit a
    comprehensive annual report to the House Committee on Resources and
    Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
    Transportation on how the oceans and coastal research activities of
    NOAA and NSF will be coordinated (in compliance with Section 9 of
    Public Law 107-299). The report describes in detail any overlapping
    ocean and coastal research interests between the agencies and specifies
    how such research interests will be pursued by the programs in a
    complementary manner. This year's annual report is currently under
    administrative review.

                                   FUEL COSTS

        Question. NOAA operates a fleet of 21 ships with the price of oil
    above $100 a barrel. How has this increase in fuel costs impacted the
    amount of science that can be conducted? When you prepared your budgets
    what was your assumption for fuel costs?
        Answer. Answer. At the time of our fiscal year 2009 budget
    development, NOAA projected fuel to cost $2.47 per gallon. Today, fuel
    costs are averaging nearly $3.17 a gallon. As an example of the
    challenges we are facing, in January 2008, one ship paid over $4 per
    gallon to refuel at a foreign port under a DOD contract. Half way
    through fiscal year 2008, with diesel fuel reaching record highs and
    averaging over $3 a gallon, our projection for fiscal year 2009 fuel
    prices shows a full-year average cost of $3.66 per gallon.
        At $2.47 per gallon, we expected to perform 3,390 days of science
    in fiscal year 2009; at $3.66, we can only perform 2,600 days of
    science--a reduction of 790 days or a 23 percent decrease.
        Rising fuel prices have also impacted NOAA's ability to charter
    days at sea. The day rate to charter both UNOLS and commercial ships
    has increased due to the rise in fuel costs. For example, UNOLS' RV
    REVELLE's fiscal year 2007 day rate was $26,200/day. As of March, 2008,
    this rate is now $32,000/day, a 22 percent increase. Other UNOLS
    vessels of the same class have also correspondingly increased in their
    day rates.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                        ``JOHN C. COBB'' DECOMMISSIONING

        Question. I have been told that NOAA plans to decommission the NOAA
    fishery survey vessel JOHN C. COBB this year.
        What are NOAA's plans to replace this vessel?
        Answer. NOAA Fisheries Service is currently undertaking a
    comprehensive analysis of Southeast Alaska mission requirements that
    will address present and future MSRA mandated responsibilities.
    Potential procurement and/or long-term lease of suitable charter
    vessels to support NOAA's mission will be considered.
        Question. If this vessel is decommissioned does the fiscal year
    2009 budget request contain enough funding to contract out all of the
    surveys currently undertaken by the COBB in Alaska?
        Answer. NOAA's base funding contains $500,000 in fiscal year 2009
    to charter vessels to meet survey requirements in Southeast Alaska.
    This funding would be used to charter a vessel (or vessels) with
    capabilities similar to the COBB for work primarily in Southeast
    Alaska.

                      PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND

        Question. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget calls for a
    drastic reduction in funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
    Fund.
        This program has been valuable in my State to ensure the health of
    salmon populations, and to mitigate the impacts of harvest reductions
    imposed by the Pacific Salmon Treaty on Alaska fisheries and coastal
    communities.
        How will the reduction in funding impact these efforts?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $35
    million for Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund activities. The funds
    will be distributed under a competitive process between the eligible
    States of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and Alaska and Coastal
    and Columbia River Tribes.
        The funds will be distributed based on Congressional authorization
    direction for the funds--salmon habitat conservation and restoration,
    salmon stock enhancement, and salmon research and related activities--
    and the following three program priorities: (1) Recovery and
    conservation of salmon and steelhead that are listed as threatened or
    endangered, or identified by a state as at-risk or to be so-listed, (2)
    Maintenance of salmon and steelhead populations necessary for exercise
    of tribal treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing, and (3)
    Habitat protection and restoration for salmon and steelhead. All funds
    distributed to State entities will require a 33 percent match of non-
    federal funds. Under the competitive process in fiscal year 2009 the
    State of Alaska will be eligible to receive funds. The amount Alaska
    will receive will depend on how the above listed criteria are addressed
    in grant applications.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg

                                     CICEET

        Question. VADM Lautenbacher, as you know, the Cooperative Institute
    for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) is a
    partnership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) and the University of New Hampshire (UNH). CICEET is a valuable
    national resource that is making a difference in many coastal
    jurisdictions through its close coordination with the National
    Estuarine Research Reserve System.
        With my support, CICEET was established in 1997 to develop tools
    for clean water and healthy coasts nationwide. Through its nationally
    competitive, peer reviewed program, CICEET has funded development and
    demonstration of dozens of field ready technologies--with many more in
    the pipeline--that address coastal resource problems in three ways:
    tools to detect pollution, tools to enhance recovery, and tools to
    prevent pollution impacts.
        This year, the Office of Management and Budget elected to take
    CICEET out of the President's budget. Given the over ten years of
    Congressional support, an opportunity now exists for NOAA to make
    explicitly clear that CICEET is a core NOAA activity, and fund it
    directly out of its budget.
        Could you please provide a plan for how CICEET will be funded in
    fiscal year 2009 and beyond?
        Answer. The Administration has proposed a $5.2 million competitive
    research program to develop new technology to monitor coastal and
    estuarine environments and address coastal management challenges
    through the National Estuarine Research Reserves System. CICEET/UNH as
    well as previous CICEET grant recipients will be eligible to compete
    for funding through the NERRS competitive research program.
                                     ______

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

            Prepared Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am pleased to present the National Science Foundation's
    budget for the 2009 fiscal year.
        The National Science Foundation (NSF) proposes a fiscal year 2009
    investment of $6.85 billion to advance the frontiers of research and
    education in science and engineering. Our budget request includes an
    increase of $789 million--or 13 percent--over the current fiscal year
    2008 amount. This increase is necessary to put NSF back on the course
    that was charted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative
    (ACI) and by the America COMPETES Act. This year's budget reflects the
    Administration's continued resolve to double overall funding for the
    ACI research agencies within 10 years.
        An investment in the National Science Foundation is a direct
    investment in America's economic security. In fact, without a solid
    basic research foundation for our high-tech economy, no economic
    security is possible. Basic research underpins all of the technology
    that constitutes the lifeblood of today's global market. America's
    sustained economic prosperity is based in part on technological
    innovation resulting from previous fundamental science and engineering
    research. Innovation and technology are engines of the American
    economy, and advances in science and engineering provide the fuel.
        While the United States still leads the world in its level of
    public and private R&D investment, our counterparts around the globe
    are well aware of the importance of funding R&D. A string of recent
    reports have found evidence that China is rapidly accruing global
    technological standing, including an OECD finding that China was set to
    become the second-highest investor in R&D among world nations in 2006,
    behind only the United States.\1\ \2\ \3\ Over the last two decades,
    U.S. federal support of research in the physical sciences, mathematics,
    and engineering has been stagnant when adjusted for inflation. As a
    percentage of GDP, the U.S. federal government has halved its
    investment in physical science and engineering research since 1970.
    Conversely, the Chinese government has more than doubled its GDP
    percentage expenditure in R&D since 1995.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.oecd.org/document/26/
    0,2340,en_2649_201185_37770522_1_1_1_1,00.html.
        \2\ http://www.tpac.gatech.edu/hti2007/HTI2007ReportNSF_012208.pdf.
        \3\ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07319/pdf/nsf07319.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        More than a dozen major studies have now concluded that a
    substantial increase in federal funding for basic scientific research
    is critical to ensure the preeminence of America's scientific and
    technological enterprise.
        Just recently, Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin,
    released a follow-up to ``The Gathering Storm'' report entitled, ``Is
    America Falling Off the Flat Earth?'' His message is clear: ``Unless
    substantial investments are made to the engine of innovation--basic
    scientific research and development--the current generation may be the
    first in our country's history to leave their children and
    grandchildren a lower sustained standard of living.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Augustine, Norman. Is America Falling off the Flat Earth?
    National Academies Press.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For over fifty years, NSF has been a steward of the nation's
    science and engineering enterprise. NSF investments in discovery,
    learning, and innovation have been important to increasing America's
    economic strength, global competitiveness, national security and
    overall quality of life.
        With its relatively small size, NSF delivers an enormous ``bang for
    the buck'' of federal government research and development (R&D)
    investment. NSF represents just four percent of the total federal
    budget for research and development, but accounts for a full fifty
    percent of non-life science basic research at academic institutions.
    NSF is the research funding lifeline for many fields and emerging
    interdisciplines at the frontiers of discovery. In fact, NSF is the
    only federal agency that supports all fields of basic science and
    engineering research.
        NSF relies on a merit-based, competitive process that is critical
    to fostering the highest standards of excellence and accountability--
    standards that have been emulated at other funding agencies around the
    world.

                        NSF SUPPORTS AMERICAN INNOVATION

    The Foundation of Innovation
        NSF often funds a technology in its earliest stages, frequently
    before other agencies or industries get involved. NSF funding was
    involved in the developmental phase of the technology used in magnetic
    resonance imaging (MRI) now ubiquitous in diagnostic medicine, the
    research that led to the development of silicon-coated glass used in
    flat panel displays, and the early investigations that led to green and
    blue light-emitting diodes used in cell phone displays and traffic
    lights. In 1952, Caltech professor Max Delbruck used one of NSF's first
    grants to invent molecular biology techniques that enabled one of his
    students, James Watson, to discover the molecular structure of DNA, and
    another Nobel laureate, David Baltimore, to unravel some of its
    mysteries.
        In a more recent example, NSF CAREER awardee Jay Keasling, now the
    head of the NSF-sponsored Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center
    at the University of California-Berkeley, and two postdoctoral
    researchers from his lab founded Amyris, a company that is taking a
    revolutionary approach to chemical manufacturing by harnessing
    metabolic processes in microorganisms. Through genetic engineering, the
    researchers ``program'' the microbes to churn out useful chemicals,
    bypassing traditional, more expensive methods. Amyris has engineered a
    strain of yeast that can produce large quantities of artemisinic acid,
    a precursor to a compound found naturally in a plant that fights
    malaria but is currently in short supply. Amyris is also developing a
    fermentation process to deliver a biofuel gasoline substitute. NSF
    funding of the early research conducted at Berkeley enabled the
    discoveries that led to this promising new company, named 2007
    ``Business Leader of the Year'' by Scientific American magazine.
        NSF as an agency is itself the origin of transformative practices.
    One new NSF innovation is Research.gov, which is fulfilling our vision
    of a seamless interface between government funding agencies and the
    investigators we support. Research.gov is a one-stop shop, where
    researchers can go to manage their existing portfolio of grants and
    explore new opportunities. Research.gov is a tool that streamlines the
    process of applying for federal grants, making it easier and more cost-
    effective for the federal government to serve its customers.

    Educating Tomorrow's Workforce
        Beyond all of our efforts to advance the frontiers of knowledge and
    spur innovation, NSF is dedicated to educating and training the
    nation's skilled labor force. NSF plays a role in science, technology,
    engineering, and math (STEM) education at every educational level. Our
    contribution to education may ultimately be NSF's most profound and
    meaningful legacy.
        The scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians
    trained through NSF's integration of research and education transfer
    the latest scientific and engineering concepts from universities
    directly to the entrepreneurial sector when they enter the workforce.
        Our graduate research fellowship (GRF) program has supported
    several notable technologists and scientists early in their
    professional training. Prominent economist Steven Levitt, co-author of
    the popular book Freakonomics, was an NSF GRF recipient from 1992 to
    1994. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was an NSF graduate research
    fellow in the mid-1990s when he began thinking about how to create an
    internet search engine. NSF's GRF program is as old as the foundation
    itself, and gives young scientists an early career charge, allowing
    them to go on to greatness. At least three Physics Nobel Prize winners
    are former NSF GRF recipients. We are extremely pleased with the
    proposed $29 million increase in the GRF program's funding for fiscal
    year 2009 which will enable us to fund an additional 700 promising
    young American investigators. A recent article from the National Bureau
    of Economic Research suggests that an increase in the number of GRF
    awards would help to supply an increased demand for talented
    individuals in the American science and technology workforce that will
    result from an increase in R&D spending.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Freeman, Richard. The Market for Scientists and Engineers. NBER
    Reporter, 2007 No. 3, pp. 6-8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At some point in their careers, nearly 200 Nobel Prize-winning
    scientists received NSF funding for research in chemistry, physics,
    medicine, and economics. And scores of NSF-supported scientists shared
    a measure of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as members of the United
    Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
        To strengthen the educational institutions that benefit from NSF
    awards, the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)
    program, Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3), challenges
    institutions to think strategically about the creative integration of
    NSF-funded awards. This provides the opportunity for NSF-grantees at
    particular institutions to cooperate and share a common vision for
    improved educational excellence at their institution.

                        AMERICA COMPETES ACT COMPLIANCE

        The America COMPETES Act contains several requirements for NSF. We
    are actively processing those directives and devising plans to
    implement them in a timely manner. In the fiscal year 2009 request,
    activities that overlap with the President's American Competitiveness
    Initiative receive top priority. These priority areas do include strong
    links to other fields, and our request includes across-the-board
    increases for all directorates.
        We are currently evaluating how to best ramp up the Robert Noyce
    Teacher Scholarship Program to bring an infusion of talented teachers
    into the nation's K-12 education system. To launch such a large-scale
    program, we will carefully evaluate what we need to do to maximize its
    societal impact and success. We will apply what we have learned from
    our other successful scholarship programs to ensure the program is
    administered in the best possible way.
        We are also working how best to evaluate grant applicants' plans
    for training undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs in
    responsible and ethical conduct of research. A number of our programs
    including our Centers and the Integrative Graduate Education and
    Research Traineeship (IGERT) program already contain ethics components.
    We will add a new certification requirement for institutions, which
    will require the institution to have a plan in place to provide
    appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical
    conduct of research for all undergraduates, graduate students, and
    postdocs participating in the NSF-funded research project.
        Open access to research results is an essential component of a
    strong and healthy scientific enterprise. We currently make available
    the citations of NSF-funded research on both the NSF website and on
    Research.gov. To further the goal of disseminating the results of NSF-
    funded research, we will develop revised reporting guidelines for NSF
    principle investigators (PIs). These guidelines will enable the PIs to
    summarize the key accomplishments of their NSF-funded work, including
    scientific findings, student training, and professional development
    activities. This information will be made available on the NSF website.

                         2009 BUDGET REQUEST HIGHLIGHTS

        At NSF, we understand that new discoveries are the main driving
    force behind societal progress. As the nation's premier funding agency
    for basic research, our mission is to advance the frontiers of
    knowledge, where high-risk, high-reward research can lay the foundation
    for revolutionary technologies and tackle complex societal problems.
    The NSF budget for 2009 reflects this vital agenda, and I'm pleased to
    present it to you today.
        Let me begin with the big picture. As noted earlier, the President
    is requesting $6.85 billion for the NSF in fiscal year 2009. That's an
    increase of almost $789 million, or 13 percent above the current 2008
    appropriated amount. While it seems like a large increase, this level
    is necessary to fulfill the President's vision for physical science and
    basic research set forth in the American Competitiveness Initiative.
    The fiscal year 2009 request is squarely in line with the goal of
    doubling of ACI research agency budgets over 10 years. This increased
    investment will reinforce NSF's leadership in basic science and
    engineering and allow us to preserve America's preeminence in the
    global technology economy.
        In this year's proposed budget, funding levels increase for every
    major NSF appropriations account. Research and Related Activities
    investments increase by 16 percent, and our Education and Human
    Resources account is increased by 8.9 percent. We need rapid progress
    in these areas to stimulate the discoveries in research we need to
    maintain our standing in the global marketplace, and to keep our
    students engaged and ready to perform in the global workforce. Our
    budget includes increases for every Directorate and Office within NSF.
        Here are highlights of some of the key investments we are
    emphasizing in our 2009 budget.

    Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation
        Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) is expected to create
    revolutionary science and engineering research results using
    ``computational thinking''--thinking that encompasses all possible
    computational concepts, methods, models, algorithms, and tools.
    Computational thinking is relevant to all fields of science,
    engineering and education, and promises to have a profound impact on
    our nation's ability to generate and apply new knowledge. We expect CDI
    research to produce paradigm shifts in our understanding of a wide
    range of science and engineering phenomena, and we anticipate socio-
    technical innovations to create new wealth and enhance the national
    quality of life. By investing in CDI, NSF continues its leadership in
    enabling the United States to preserve its role as the world leader in
    information technology.
        Requested Funding Level: $100 million.

    Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law
        ``Moore's Law'' refers to the empirical observation made in 1965 by
    Intel co-founder Gordon Moore that the speed of computer processing
    based on semiconductor integrated circuits doubles about every 18
    months. With current silicon technology, we expect to reach the
    physical and conceptual limits of Moore's Law within 20 years. If we
    are ever to solve the computational challenges inherent in today's
    great scientific questions, we must find a way to take computing power
    and communications beyond Moore's Law. To get there, we'll need
    entirely new scientific, engineering, and conceptual frameworks.
    Fundamental research across many disciplines will be called upon to
    deliver the new hardware, architectures, algorithms, and software of
    the computers of tomorrow.
        Requested Funding Level: $20 million.

    Adaptive Systems Technology
        Recent progress in probing the secrets of biological systems has
    been explosive. We are only just beginning to see the application of
    these new and transformational discoveries to the development of
    engineered systems, especially at the interface between human and
    machines. We call our new interdisciplinary endeavor--research at the
    convergence of human and mechanical systems--Adaptive Systems
    Technology (AST). New applications and technologies resulting from AST
    have already demonstrated substantial economic potential. Artificial
    retinas and cochlea, electronic language translators, and smart hand-
    held electronics are just a handful of the products that have already
    come to market at the human-machine interface. NSF's broad portfolio
    encompasses the diverse research areas involved in this new
    interdisciplinary effort. Biologists uncover nature's progression from
    simple to complex nervous systems; physicists and chemists explain the
    fundamental processes underlying complex neural organization and
    communication pathways; mathematicians, computer scientists and
    cognitive scientists explore how systems compute; learning and
    behavioral scientists provide insights into how organisms learn and
    adapt to their environment; while engineers allow the design, analysis
    and construction of systems that mimic living nervous system networks.
    By working together, these scientists and engineers can benefit from
    the knowledge and experience of experts in other fields, developing new
    concepts through collaboration and idea-sharing.
        Requested Funding Level: $15 million.

    Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment
        This activity will build upon NSF's considerable track record on
    fundamental water research, while utilizing our unique ability to cross
    disciplinary boundaries to bring together the separate communities of
    researchers working on the varying aspects of water science. Water is
    fundamental to every economic activity in the country, and yet, we do
    not have a full understanding of the effects of human interventions and
    changing environmental conditions on the availability and quality of
    fresh water. The economic driving forces for understanding water
    processes are compelling: droughts alone cause average damages of $6 to
    $8 billion annually in the United States. Understanding water dynamics
    is also essential to understanding climate and environmental change.
    NSF's investment in Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment will
    enhance our ability to understand complex freshwater systems at
    regional and local levels, taking advantage of advanced observation
    networks, cyberinfrastructure, and integrated databases.
        Requested Funding Level: $10 million.

    National Nanotechnology Initiative
        NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and we remain
    strongly committed to supporting this vital emerging industry. Our goal
    is to support fundamental research and catalyze synergistic science and
    engineering research and education in emerging areas of nanoscale
    science and technology. We are also committed to research directed at
    the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology. Novel
    materials, devices, and systems--with their building blocks designed on
    the scale of nanometers--open up new directions in science,
    engineering, and technology with potentially profound implications for
    society. With the capacity to control and manipulate matter at this
    scale, science, engineering, and technology are realizing revolutionary
    advances in areas such as individualized pharmaceuticals, new drug
    delivery systems, more resilient materials and fabrics, catalysts for
    industry, and order-of-magnitude faster computer chips.
        Requested Funding Level: $397 million.

    Climate Change Science Program
        Scientists predict that the climate of the earth is changing
    rapidly, and we have much to learn about how climate affects human
    activities, how human activities affect climate, and what we can do to
    protect human life and health in the face of disruptive climate events.
    The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was established in 2002 in
    response to the challenge of understanding climate and climate
    variability. Science-based knowledge is absolutely essential to our
    ability to predict the changes that are likely to take place, and
    devise informed plans to mitigate the negative impacts of climate
    change on humanity. The CCSP engages thirteen U.S. agencies in a
    concerted interagency program of basic research, comprehensive
    observations, integrative modeling, and development of products for
    decision-makers. Consistent with the fiscal year 2009 Interagency
    Implementation Priorities memo, NSF provides support for the broad
    range of fundamental research activities that form a sound basis for
    other mission-oriented agencies in the CCSP, and the nation at large.
        Building on our agency's particular strengths, NSF encourages
    interdisciplinary activities and focuses particularly on Earth system
    processes and the consequences of change. Our priorities include the
    management of enormous amount of data necessary for accurate global
    change modeling and research, the refinement and improvement of
    computational models, and the development of new, innovative earth
    observing instruments and platforms.
        Requested Funding Level: $221 million.

    International Science and Engineering
        International collaboration is essential to the health of the
    nation's research enterprise. The importance of international
    partnership continues to increase as globalization ``shrinks'' our
    world. Consequently, our funding request for the Office of
    International Science and Engineering is increased by nearly 15 percent
    to $47.4 million. A major focus in our budget is the Partnerships for
    International Research and Education (PIRE) program, which increases by
    $3.0 million to $15.0 million. This program funds innovative,
    international collaborative research projects that link U.S.
    institutions and researchers at all career levels with premier
    international collaborators to work at the most promising frontiers of
    new knowledge.

    Broadening Participation
        NSF remains a leader in efforts to broaden participation in science
    and engineering, so that America's science and engineering enterprise
    is as diverse as the nation from which it draws its workforce. Our 2009
    request for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
    (EPSCoR) program increases to $113.5 million. We are also increasing
    our request for several programs designed to reach out to
    underrepresented groups, including Alliances for Graduate Education and
    Professoriate (AGEP), the Historically Black Colleges and Universities-
    Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), the Louis Stokes Alliances for
    Minority Participation (LSAMP), and Centers of Research Excellence in
    Science and Technology (CREST).
    Enhancing Opportunities for Beginning Researchers (CAREER)
        The 2009 request provides an increase of approximately $14 million
    for funding of the CAREER program. This increase will allow us to award
    some 34 more CAREER awards than in fiscal year 2008. CAREER awards
    support exceptionally promising college and university junior faculty
    who are committed to the integration of research and education. Our
    experience with previous CAREER awardees has proven that these faculty
    become the research leaders of their respective fields, and this
    program is vital to fostering the success of emerging science and
    technology leaders.
        Requested Funding Level: $182 million.

    Stewardship
        NSF's Stewardship goal, to support excellence in science and
    engineering research and education through a capable and responsive
    organization, remains a priority in the 2009 budget, with a 13 percent
    increase to $404.3 million. Our request increases the NSF workforce by
    50 staff to enable us to manage our growing and increasingly complex
    workload. Investments in information technology (IT) increase by 32
    percent to $82.0 million, with an emphasis on increasing the
    efficiency, productivity, and transparency of NSF's business processes.
    In this request, NSF's IT portfolio is realigned to tie funding for
    mission-related activities more directly to NSF's programs.
        Requested Funding Level: $404 million.

    Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account
        NSF will continue to support a portfolio of ongoing projects in the
    Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account (MREFC),
    including the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, Ice Cube, and Advanced
    LIGO.
        The Foundation continues to be committed to the Alaska Regional
    Research Vessel (ARRV), the National Ecological Observatory Network
    (NEON), and the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). However, in
    keeping with new NSF policies, Administration and Congressional
    mandates, and guidance from the National Science Board, NSF has adopted
    more stringent budget and schedule controls to improve our stewardship
    of taxpayer dollars. We are postponing requests for additional funding
    for those projects until they have undergone a final design review,
    completed a risk management plan, and developed a rigorous baseline
    budget, including carefully considered contingencies.
        NSF's MREFC portfolio includes late-stage design-phase funding for
    the proposed Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), which if
    carried into the construction phase would be the first large U.S. solar
    telescope built in the past 30 years. ATST would reveal critical
    information needed to explore crucial mysteries such as: What are the
    mechanisms responsible for solar flares, coronal mass ejections and
    space weather, with their associated impact on satellites,
    communications networks, and power grids? What are the processes that
    cause solar variability and its impact on the Earth's climate and
    evolution? The ATST project is managed by the National Solar
    Observatory, which administers the world's leading collection of solar
    telescopes.
        Requested Funding Level: $2.5 million.

                               CONCLUDING REMARKS

        Madam Chairwoman, I've touched on just a handful of programs found
    in NSF's diverse and vibrant portfolio. NSF's research and education
    activities support the nation's innovation enterprise. America's
    present and future strength, prosperity and global preeminence depend
    directly on fundamental research. This is not merely rhetoric; the
    scientific and economic record of the past 30 years is proof that an
    investment in R&D is an investment in a secure future.
        NSF may not be the largest agency that funds science and
    engineering research, but our size serves to keep us nimble. Our
    portfolio is continually evolving as we identify and pursue new
    research at the frontiers of knowledge. An essential part of our
    mission is to constantly re-think old categories and traditional
    perspectives. This ability is more important than ever, as conventional
    boundaries constantly shift and disappear--boundaries between nations,
    between disciplines, between science and engineering, and between what
    is basic and what is applied. NSF, with its mandate to support all
    fields of science and engineering, is uniquely positioned to meet the
    needs of researchers exploring human knowledge at these interfaces,
    whether we're organizing interdisciplinary conferences, enabling cyber-
    sharing of data and information, or encouraging new collaborations and
    partnerships across disciplinary and national borders. No other
    government agency comes close to our flexibility in STEM education and
    basic research.
        In today's high-tech economy, the supply of new jobs is
    inextricably linked to the health of the nation's innovation endeavor.
    NSF is involved in all aspects of innovation; NSF not only funds the
    discoveries that directly become the innovations of tomorrow, we also
    fund discoveries that lead to still more discoveries that lead to the
    innovations of tomorrow, and, perhaps most critically, we train the
    technologists who dream up the discoveries that lead to the discoveries
    and innovations of tomorrow.
        Industry increasingly relies on government support for high-risk,
    high-reward basic research. If we fail to provide adequate support of
    the technological sector now, we may well reduce our own economic
    security. It is no accident that our country's most productive and
    competitive industries are those that benefited the most from sustained
    federal investments in R&D--including computers and communications,
    semiconductors, biotechnology, and aerospace.
        As we look to the century ahead of us, we face the reality that the
    other nations in this world are eager to create jobs and robust
    economies for their citizens. In this context, ``globalization'' is
    shorthand for a complex, permanent, and challenging environment that
    calls for sustainable, long-term responses, not just short-term fixes.
    Regardless of our action or inaction as a nation, the world is full of
    highly motivated and increasingly skilled workers who are working hard
    to improve their economic standing and well-being. We can either
    innovate, and keep our economic prosperity, or stagnate, and suffer the
    consequences of inaction.
        Despite some of the more pessimistic forecasts of some observers, I
    believe that America can continue to be on the leading edge of ideas
    and research. Through strong federal leadership, we can maintain the
    standing of our businesses and universities. We must not only maintain
    our position, we must actively seek to increase our strengths:
    leadership in fundamental discovery, including high-risk, high-reward
    transformational research, state-of-the-art facilities and
    infrastructure, and a world-class S&E workforce. With a firm commitment
    to these fundamental building blocks of our high-tech economy, we can
    solidify America's role as the world leader in innovation.
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I hope that this
    brief overview has given you a taste of just how very important the
    National Science Foundation and its activities are to the future
    prosperity of the United States. I look forward to working with you in
    months ahead, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                                 STEM EDUCATION

        Question. Statistics show that women earn half of the bachelors
    degrees in science and engineering, yet continue to be significantly
    underrepresented in academic science and engineering careers
    (constituting 29 percent of doctoral science and engineering faculty in
    four-year colleges and universities and only 18 percent of full
    professors).
        Why was ADVANCE the one program at NSF designed specifically to
    increase the participation and advancement of women in academic science
    and engineering careers cut in the fiscal year 2009 request?
        Answer. The ADVANCE Program is an integral part of NSF's
    multifaceted strategy to broaden participation to help realize a
    diverse science and engineering (S&E) workforce. The program supports
    the critical role of the Foundation in advancing the status of women in
    academic S&E. ADVANCE is an NSF-wide activity and its success depends
    upon the cooperation, dedication, and coordinated action of
    directorates and offices from across the Foundation. EHR, where the
    ADVANCE Program now resides, supports several of the Foundation's
    flagship broadening participation programs and is well positioned to
    undertake this coordination. EHR's increased investment in fiscal year
    2009 in ADVANCE serves to offset slightly the reduction from the
    Research and Related Activities account.
        Question. NSF requests an overall increase in its fiscal year 2009
    budget of 13 percent, yet the six primary programs that it utilizes to
    advance the goal of increasing diversity in the science and engineering
    workforce are only increased a combined 7 percent.
        Why isn't NSF prioritizing the advancement of women and minorities
    in the fields of science and engineering as much as research grants?
        Answer. A seven percent increase--far higher than the average
    increase for discretionary programs--shows NSF's strong support for
    these programs. NSF remains committed to broadening participation in
    science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.
    While the following six programs are flagship efforts within the HRD
    Division in support of diversity, there are other programs at NSF that
    support this goal. Alliances for Graduate Education & the Professoriate
    (AGEP); Centers for Research Excellence in Science and Technology
    (CREST); Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Undergraduate
    Program (HBCU-UP); Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
    (LSAMP); Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE); and
    Tribal Colleges & Universities Program (TCUP).
        Other programs located in the EHR Directorate that focus on
    diversity entirely or include it as a key component. They are: Research
    in Disabilities Education (RDE); Presidential Awards for Excellence in
    Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM); Scholarships
    in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM); Graduate
    Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12); Robert Noyce Teacher
    Scholarship Program (NOYCE); and Math and Science Partnerships (MSP)
    Program.
        Finally, several NSF programs focus on diversity as key components
    of workforce development: ADVANCE; Opportunities for Enhancement of
    Diversity in the Geosciences; Integrative Graduate Education Research
    Traineeship Program (IGERT); Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFs);
    EPSCoR (which focuses on broadened geographic diversity); Broadening
    Participation in Computing; and Broadening Participation in the
    Biological Sciences.
        In addition, many NSF-supported centers conduct education and
    outreach efforts to increase interest in STEM. Some of these are aimed
    specifically at groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
        Given the scope and complexity of Foundation-wide programs, NSF is
    currently developing a plan to coordinate ongoing STEM efforts to
    increase the participation of underrepresented groups as a core
    practice.
        Question. The fiscal year 2008 omnibus urged NSF to begin focus on
    broadening Hispanic participation rates in science and engineering.
    What is NSF doing to increase Hispanic participation?
        Answer. NSF appreciates the omnibus conference language encouraging
    the agency to broaden Hispanic participation throughout STEM
    disciplines. In response to the America COMPETES Act, NSF established
    an internal study group to determine the most effective ways to serve
    Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) through our existing programs and
    to consider the creation of a designated HSI program. We are in the
    process of gathering best practices from existing programs and
    scholarly research to complement current NSF program investments and to
    inform future programmatic directions regarding HSIs.

                                  STEWARDSHIP

        Question. How does the new ``no-cost over run'' policy impact the
    Alaska Research Vessel, NEON, and the ocean observatory initiative?
        Answer. NSF expects the lead organizations for these projects to
    develop firm plans, budgets, risk assessments, and schedules for
    accomplishing the proposed activities prior to making any further
    request to Congress for construction funding. NSF will conduct Final
    Design Reviews (FDR) for all three projects, utilizing experts in all
    of the major technical, management, and administrative areas, to assure
    that these plans, budgets, risk assessments, and schedules are
    credible. Only after successful completion of these reviews will NSF
    make a request for further construction funding. The impact to these
    projects is that there will be confidence that they will accomplish
    what they propose within the envelope of requested construction
    funding, recognizing that required funding and schedules will be
    different than was previously presented in NSF budget requests.
        Question. Will NSF submit a revised budget if the University of
    Alaska presents an acceptable schedule and budget for the Alaska
    Research Vessel under the new policy?
        Answer. As is noted above, all future funding requests for the ARRV
    construction depend on the project successfully completing the final
    design review. Now that the FDR is a requirement, the current ARRV
    project plan is to complete the FDR process in time for consideration
    by the next Administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request.
        Question. Congress provided total appropriations of $115 million
    between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2007 for the Scientific Ocean
    Drilling ship. The ship is currently under construction in Singapore as
    no U.S. shipyard bid on the project.
        What special steps has NSF done to maintain oversight of this
    project given that it is on the other side of the world?
        Answer. NSF has taken a number of specific steps to maintain
    oversight of the SODV project. These steps are intended to ensure
    ongoing communication with the project team in Singapore and to address
    the rapidly changing climate in the shipbuilding industry.
        NSF has overseen the installation in Singapore of an experienced
    on-site project team, skilled in all aspects of ship construction and
    outfitting, to oversee, facilitate, and monitor progress. The on-site
    personnel are in daily communication with their stateside counterparts,
    and report regularly to NSF.
        NSF staff members have made many visits to Singapore to confer with
    those directly involved in the refit of the ship, and to see first-hand
    the activity and progress that have occurred. Except for the greater
    travel distances involved, these oversight activities are similar to
    what would be done if the work were done at a closer location.
        In addition to issues related to the location of the SODV refit,
    other issues relate to difficulties in managing the rapidly changing
    business climate in the shipbuilding industry. With a budget profile
    that allowed the SODV to enter the shipyard in 2007, rapid cost
    escalations meant that the original plan to extend the SODV was not
    financially feasible. The project team, led by the Joint Oceanographic
    lnstitutions' (JOI) Division of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership
    (COL) did not have ready a robust design for a refit within the
    existing hull, and time was needed to prepare one. In response to NSF
    concerns, COL has ensured involvement of, and buy-in from, the
    scientific ocean drilling community in the rescoped plans for the SODV
    refit; overseen augmentation of, and changes to, the senior on-site
    project management team; and led planning for the final stages of
    construction and outfitting. NSF has requested and received from COL a
    Corrective Action Plan to ensure maximum efficiency and benefit to NSF
    in these final stages of the project.
        Question. Has the weakness in the U.S. dollar adversely impacted
    the completion of the ship?
        Answer. The effect of the weak U.S. dollar has been relatively
    small compared to the overall project budget of $115 million. The
    shipyard work is being done under a fixed price contract in U.S.
    dollars, and much of the ancillary science equipment is of U.S. origin.
    There have been negative impacts, however, due to the roughly 9 percent
    decline in the United States vs. the Singapore dollar, which has made
    it somewhat more expensive to maintain the necessary U.S. oversight
    team in Singapore during the refit activity.
        Question. In the latest Semiannual Repot to Congress, the NSF
    Inspector General notes that the Large Facilities Office is not
    adequately staffed to handle it increasing responsibilities for
    oversight.
        Do you plan to hire additional staff for this office?
        Answer. NSF was able to add one additional person to the Large
    Facilities Office (LFO) in the last year, which has been very helpful.
    With a large number of ongoing and upcoming MREFC projects, we
    recognize the need to have the necessary internal resources available.
    The fiscal year 2009 budget includes funding for at least one
    additional FTE for the LFO, and we will allocate additional FTEs and
    financial resources as needed. We also engage outside project
    management expertise on a contract basis as needed.
        Directorates involved in detailed planning or implementation for
    MREFC projects are also expected to provide the more specialized
    technical expertise that is closely matched to the needs of individual
    MREFC projects. This complements the capabilities of the LFO.
        Question. If not, what other methods will you use to provide the
    additional oversight that is needed?
        Answer. NSF continues to provide training opportunities to Program
    Officers to inform them of project management issues, and NSF and NSB
    are also examining ways that earlier NSB review and analysis of
    potential future large projects could strengthen NSF's oversight.

                                CLIMATE RESEARCH

        Question. A recent GAO study of federal climate research at DOE,
    NASA, NSF, and NOAA examined how to make research data more widely
    available to research community. While some of the data generated by
    this research are stored in online achieves most remains in a less
    accessible format with individual researchers. GAO recommended that
    agencies develop additional archiving strategies.
        What is the current policy with regard to the sharing of data at
    NOAA and NSF?
        Answer. Data-sharing plans are an important consideration during
    both the peer review of proposals and subsequently in the award
    decision process. The NSF has a standing agency-wide data policy
    requiring free (other than duplication costs) and open access to data
    collected with NSF support. Most directorates have more detailed
    guidelines and terms designed specifically for the types of data
    normally collected in the research disciplines they support and may
    include specific requirements as part of their formal proposal
    solicitations.
        Question. What are NSF and NOAA doing to address these GAO
    recommendations?
        Answer. A large portion of the data collected routinely that is
    relevant to the Climate Change Science Program is obtained by various
    mission agencies (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--
    National Oceanographic Data Center and National Climate Data Center,
    U.S. Geological Survey, United States Department of Agriculture,
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, etc.), which support
    national archives, and much of the data collected as part of NSF's
    research efforts is ultimately stored in such archives. For example,
    much of the paleoclimate data are stored in the World Data Center for
    Paleoclimatology run by NOAA in Boulder, CO, although some resides in
    the National Lacustrine Core Repository at the University of Minnesota.
    Data from process studies may be stored at agency archives or at
    facilities serving the broader community such as the National Center
    for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). In addition, data are stored in
    personal archives maintained by NSF Principal Investigators at their
    home institutions.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens

                               POLAR ICEBREAKERS

        Question. Does the funding arrangement for the polar icebreakers
    allow for adequate maintenance of the polar ice breaking fleet and the
    training/proficiency of Coast Guard crews?
        Answer. Yes, assuming that our budget requests are fully
    appropriated. Under the terms of the USCG-NSF Memorandum of Agreement,
    the USCG provides budget estimates for inclusion in the President's
    budget request. NSF and USCG develop the annual program plan that
    supports operation and maintenance of the icebreakers.
        Question. Did the National Science Foundation request funding this
    year to keep the Polar Star in care-taker status? Why did NSF opt to
    lease a foreign icebreaker rather than use the Polar Sea for this
    year's Antarctic mission?
        Answer. NSF did not request funding to keep the Polar Star in
    caretaker status.
        The Swedish icebreaker Oden was used instead of Polar Sea for
    several reasons. The Oden offers far superior capabilities for
    scientific research and the deployment enabled U.S. scientists to
    conduct research in the Southern Ocean that would otherwise have been
    impossible. In addition, using the Polar Sea for the Antarctic mission
    would have mandated subsequent dry dock maintenance and repair costs of
    approximately $5 million. Under our agreement for the Oden, our costs
    were strictly limited to those for operations. Finally, using Oden in
    Antarctica enabled us to keep Polar Sea in reserve in the North for any
    emergency Arctic duty. We should note also that the arrangement for use
    of the Oden was a government-to-government agreement and not an
    arrangement between NSF and a foreign firm.
        Question. Do you see a strategic national interest in the Arctic
    beyond your science mission?
        Answer. Other federal agencies are more qualified than NSF to
    address needs beyond those required to support scientific research.
    With decreasing ice cover in the Arctic there would seem to be a strong
    potential for an increased range of activities in the Arctic Ocean,
    including shipping and resource exploration, but a better understanding
    of why climate change is affecting different parts of the Arctic
    differently, and differently in different seasons, will be needed
    before these activities can proceed with confidence.
        Question. Does the National Science Foundation intend to fund a
    Polar Sea Arctic mission this year in order to allow the Coast Guard
    icebreaking crew to maintain its competency?
        Answer. Yes. The Polar Sea is currently underway in the Arctic,
    conducting crew training, USCG missions (including community liaison
    and law enforcement), and science of opportunity.

                         ALASKA REGION RESEARCH VESSEL

        Question. I understand construction funding for the Alaska Region
    Research Vessel was not included in the President's fiscal year 2009
    budget.
        This vessel will replace NSF's recently de-commissioned R/V Alpha
    Helix and offer great opportunities to study the coastal and open ocean
    waters of the Alaska region.
        What are your goals for completing construction of the vessel and
    what can we do to assist you in expediting the process?
        Answer. NSF's goals for completing construction are:
      --NSF will conduct a Final Design Review (FDR) this fall to validate
            the technical design, budget, and proposed schedule for the
            ship. The FDR's validated cost and schedule will be used to
            formulate the fiscal year 2010 budget request under the next
            Administration.
      --The shipyard evaluation and bidding process will commence following
            FDR.
      --We expect shipyard construction to require 30 months or more,
            followed by 6-12 months of sea trials and commissioning,
            overlapping with the first scientific activities.
        We appreciate your offer of assistance and you and your colleagues'
    continued support for the Foundation's programs. In particular, your
    efforts to date with the University of Alaska to convey NSF's policies
    and the need for a rigorous pre-construction planning process have been
    especially valuable. We look forward to continuing to work with you as
    the fiscal year 2009 and subsequent budgets are considered.
                                     ______

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

     Prepared Statement of the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS)
                                    Program

        The Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program
    respectfully requests that Congress appropriate $52.7 million for
    fiscal year 2009 to continue RISS's support in combating violent crime,
    criminal gangs, terrorist activity, illegal drug trafficking, organized
    criminal activity, human trafficking, identity theft, and other
    regional criminal priorities and promoting officer safety.
        RISS has been at the forefront in paving the way so that law
    enforcement, public safety, and private sector partners can share
    information and receive critical investigative and technical
    assistance. The fiscal year 2008 budget request to Congress stated that
    RISS has emerged as one of the Nation's most important law enforcement
    intelligence sharing networks and continues to support efforts to
    expand and improve information sharing.
        RISS, which dates back to the 1970s, not only offers secure
    communications, access to intelligence databases, and investigative
    resources to law enforcement and public/private partners but also
    provides services to enhance and improve the ability to detect crime,
    apprehend offenders, and successfully prosecute individuals. These
    services include information sharing, analytical support, equipment
    loans, confidential funds, field staff support, technical support,
    training, research, publications, and officer safety. In many cases,
    these are services that criminal justice agencies would not have access
    to without the support of RISS.
        RISS is a federally funded, nationwide program supporting local,
    State, Federal, and tribal law enforcement and prosecution efforts with
    membership in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, United States
    territories, Australia, Canada, and England. RISS operates on a
    national basis but provides support regionally through its six
    intelligence centers, which support and serve the unique needs of their
    regions. The six RISS centers and the areas that they serve are:
      --Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network
            (MAGLOCLEN).--Delaware, District of Columbia, Indiana,
            Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and
            Pennsylvania, as well as Australia, Canada, and England.
      --Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center (MOCIC).--Illinois,
            Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
            South Dakota, and Wisconsin, as well as Canada.
      --New England State Police Information Network (NESPIN).--
            Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
            and Vermont, as well as Canada.
      --Regional Organized Crime Information Center (ROCIC).--Alabama,
            Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
            North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
            Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as Puerto Rico and the
            United States Virgin Islands.
      --Rocky Mountain Information Network (RMIN).--Arizona, Colorado,
            Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well
            as Canada.
      --Western States Information Network (WSIN).--Alaska, California,
            Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Canada and Guam.
        RISS acts as a force multiplier, enhancing the ability of criminal
    justice agencies to identify, target, and remove criminal conspiracies
    and activities spanning multijurisdictional, multistate and, sometimes,
    international boundaries. RISS facilitates the seamless exchange of
    information among agencies pertaining to known suspected criminals or
    criminal activity and enhances the coordination and communication among
    agencies that are in pursuit of criminal conspiracies determined to be
    interjurisdictional in nature.
        There is an increasing communications sophistication by criminal
    networks and a rising presence of organized and mobile narcotics crime
    as well as a resurgence of gang activity occurring across the nation.
    Interagency cooperation in sharing information has proven to be the
    best method to combat this increasing criminal activity. The RISS
    centers fill law enforcement's need for rapid, but controlled, sharing
    of information and intelligence through their unique structure,
    versatility, flexibility, and diverse services. Congress funded the
    RISS Program to address this need, as evidenced by its authorization in
    the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
        The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers RISS and has
    established guidelines for the delivery of RISS services. RISS is
    subject to oversight, monitoring, and auditing by the United States
    Congress; the United States Government Accountability Office; the
    United States Department of Justice (DOJ), BJA; and local and State
    governmental units. BJA also monitors RISS for 28 Code of Federal
    Regulations (CFR) Part 23 compliance. The 28 CFR Part 23 regulation
    emphasizes adherence to individual constitutional and privacy rights
    and places stricter controls on the RISS intelligence databases than
    those placed on most local, State, or Federal agencies. Evaluation of
    RISS continues to be positive. RISS supports and has fully operated in
    compliance with 28 CFR Part 23 since its inception. RISS firmly
    recognizes the need to ensure that individuals' constitutional rights,
    civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy interests are protected
    throughout the intelligence process. In this regard, RISS officials
    adopted a Privacy Policy to further strengthen their commitment and
    support of 28 CFR Part 23 and protection of individual privacy rights.
        In 1997, well before the attacks of September 11, 2001, RISS began
    building a national system, a secure intranet known as RISSNET. Through
    funding from Congress, RISS was able to develop RISSNET, thereby
    creating a gateway for disparate systems to connect while providing
    users with the ability to quickly query, analyze, and research data.
    Today, RISSNET is used as the system of choice for numerous law
    enforcement entities. RISSNET links thousands of law enforcement,
    criminal justice, and public safety agencies and uses state-of-the-art
    technology, such as DOJ's Global Justice Extensible Markup Language
    (XML) Data Model, to connect existing systems and networks. RISSNET
    provides the communications backbone and infrastructure for
    bidirectional sharing of investigative and intelligence information,
    offers secure sensitive but unclassified electronic communications, and
    provides controlled access to a variety of sensitive information
    resources. Over 80,000 access officers, representing hundreds of
    thousands of law enforcement officers from around the globe, are able
    to access RISSNET resources.
        Currently, more than 80 agencies are connected or pending
    connection to RISSNET. Examples include the El Paso Intelligence
    Center; the National White Collar Crime Center; Nlets--The
    International Justice and Public Safety Network; DOJ Criminal Division;
    information/intelligence networks from California, Colorado, Oregon,
    Utah, and Wyoming; and numerous other local, State, and Federal
    systems. In addition, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
    has connected staff to RISSNET, and RISS continues to expand its
    partnership with the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA).
    Currently, 18 HIDTAs are electronically connected to RISSNET.
        In this world of changing technology and with the increased need to
    provide timely, accurate, and complete information to law enforcement
    and public safety professionals, the ability to connect systems and
    streamline the capacity to house, share, inquire, and disseminate
    information and intelligence is paramount. Through RISSNET, RISS
    provides valuable collaboration with others who have experienced
    similar crime problems or who are investigating the same or similar
    crimes. In addition, RISS offers resources and tools to additional
    users beyond the typical bounds of the law enforcement realm, which
    vastly enhances the information exchange. After 9/11, RISS recognized
    the need to expand communications to public safety entities and
    developed the Automated Trusted Information Exchange (ATIX). ATIX is a
    communications system that provides first responders, critical
    infrastructure personnel, and other public safety personnel involved in
    prevention and response efforts with the ability to share terrorism and
    homeland security information in a secure, real-time environment. In
    2007, ATIX was expanded to serve as a communications resource for both
    State sex offender registries and fusion centers.
        In 2007, RISS expanded its RISS National Gang Program, known
    collectively as RISSGang, to include a criminal intelligence database,
    a Web site, a bulletin board, secure e-mail, and gang-specific
    resources. The RISSGang database provides law enforcement agencies with
    access to gang suspects, organizations, weapons, locations, and
    vehicles, as well as visual imagery of gang members, gang symbols, and
    gang graffiti. The Web site contains valuable information, research,
    tools, and other resources, including an anonymizing filter that is
    automatically applied when a user clicks on one of the links to
    published criminal gang Web sites. This tool removes the ability of the
    target Web sites to identify officers.
        RISS is currently in the process of developing RISSafe, an officer
    safety event deconfliction system. RISSafe will store, maintain, and
    monitor information on planned law enforcement events--such as raids,
    controlled buys, and surveillances--with the goal of identifying and
    alerting affected agencies of potential conflicts. Over 18,000 law
    enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty; RISSafe will
    make a significant contribution towards enhancing officer safety and
    supporting criminal investigations.
        RISS partners with a number of criminal justice organizations and
    fosters a collaborative information sharing environment. RISS partnered
    with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and HIDTAs to
    create the National Virtual Pointer System (NVPS). NVPS is an automated
    system that connects existing deconfliction pointer databases into one
    virtual pointer system. RISS also partnered with Project Safe
    Neighborhoods, which submits data to the RISS intelligence databases
    for the purpose of reducing gun violence. The Operation Respond
    Institute electronically connected its Operation Respond Emergency
    Information System, which provides critical information on railroads
    and other transportation industries, to RISSNET.
        RISS is working with DOJ and the United States Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) on the Counterterrorism Collaboration
    Interoperability Project (CCIP), which provides participating systems
    with the ability to publish documents for access by authorized users of
    other participating systems via Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds.
    This project has been recognized as a model for agencies to share
    information, as required by Presidential Executive Order 13388,
    Strengthening the Sharing of Terrorism Information to Protect
    Americans.
        Throughout 2007, RISS continued to support a number of initiatives
    to enhance information sharing, including the Dru Sjodin National Sex
    Offender Public Website and the National Criminal Intelligence Resource
    Center. RISS represents the core of collaboration and constantly seeks
    out and fosters new and existing partnerships in order to maximize the
    Nation's information sharing environment.
        RISS's partnerships and efforts have resulted in an unprecedented
    level of information and intelligence sharing. As a result, it is
    critical to ensure that the information is secure and available only to
    authorized users. RISSNET protects information through encryption,
    Internet protocol security standards, and firewalls to prevent
    unauthorized access. In addition, the criminal intelligence information
    accessed through RISSNET is controlled by its local, State, Federal,
    and tribal law enforcement member agency owners. RISS continues to
    evolve and expand, utilizing the latest technology to meet the needs of
    law enforcement member agencies.
        In 2006, RISS embarked on the RISSNET 2007 initiative to streamline
    RISS users' access to RISSNET resources. This project enhances the
    security and accessibility of RISSNET and allows for compatibility and
    interoperability of existing systems' infrastructures to leverage and
    expand information and intelligence sharing systems. RISSNET 2007
    consists of three main components--the RISSNET Portal, Secure Sockets
    Layer (SSL) authentication technology, and the Trusted Credential
    Project (TCP). The RISSNET Portal was launched in 2007 and provides
    authenticated users with one entry point for RISSNET, providing access
    to all RISSNET resources from one location. In addition, the Portal
    creates additional security layers that protect RISSNET resources and
    provides ease of access by RISS members to permitted resources. SSL is
    a widely implemented Internet browser-based technology used to transmit
    encrypted data between a Web server and a Web browser by creating a
    secure virtual connection between the browser and the server. SSL
    technology is supported by all major Internet browsers and is a
    maturely developed standard for the secure transmission of sensitive
    information. Finally, TCP seeks to identify industry-leading
    technologies for user authentication and access control and will
    develop, test, and demonstrate methods to recognize and accept
    credentials in addition to those currently used on RISSNET. These three
    projects work in unison and represent the natural next steps for
    enhancing RISS technology and service to its members.
        The RISSNET architecture is referenced and recommended in the
    General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan (GCIP) and is endorsed by the
    National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP). RISS has embraced
    and integrated the recommendations contained in the NCISP and continues
    to foster similar integration among its member agencies. In addition,
    RISS has embraced the Fusion Center Guidelines developed by DOJ and DHS
    and continues to build relationships with fusion centers. RISS
    developed a Fusion Center Partnership Strategy that integrates RISS
    services and tools into fusion center operations and has signed a
    Resolution in support of fusion centers. RISS has provided analysts to
    fusion centers, participated on fusion center advisory boards, provided
    RISSNET connectivity to fusion centers, and continues to work with
    fusion center leadership to tailor RISS services to their needs.
        RISS is one of three systems promoted by DOJ's Law Enforcement
    Information Sharing Program (LEISP) Strategy and is the only nonfederal
    entity participating in the LEISP process. RISS has also begun
    exploring opportunities to meet the needs of the recently published
    National Information Sharing Strategy.
        RISS's services and tools directly benefit detectives and
    investigative units within local, State, regional, Federal, and tribal
    criminal justice entities, making RISS a comprehensive and universal
    program. RISS delivers more that 20,000 analytical products annually
    and trains more than 68,000 officers each year. RISS's field staffs
    conducted over 27,000 on-site visits to member agencies last year to
    train, support, and help integrate RISS services. This one-on-one
    support has resulted in trusted relationships and a network prized
    among its members. These services are what make RISS a unique and
    valued program.
        The success of RISS has been acknowledged and vigorously endorsed
    by the International Association of Chiefs of Police as well as other
    national law enforcement groups, such as the National Sheriffs'
    Association and the National Fraternal Order of Police.
        In view of today's increasing demands on local, State, Federal, and
    tribal law enforcement budgets, requests for RISS services have risen.
    RISS's support has had a dramatic impact on the success of numerous
    investigations. By providing timely and accurate intelligence
    information, the RISS centers have greatly enhanced law enforcement's
    ability to more effectively dismantle criminal organizations. The
    results of these successes can be measured in the number of violent
    career criminals that are removed from our communities and the
    reduction of illicit drugs that are available to our young people.
    During the 3-year period of 2005-2007, RISS generated a return by
    member agencies resulting in 15,000 arrests, narcotics seizures valued
    over $113 million, and seizures of over $51 million in currency and/or
    recovered or seized property.
        It is respectfully requested that Congress appropriate $52.7
    million for fiscal year 2009 to continue RISS's efforts in combating
    crime and terrorism. Local and State law enforcement depend on RISS for
    information sharing, investigative support, and technical assistance
    and are increasingly competing for decreasing budget resources. It
    would be counterproductive to require local and State RISS members to
    self-fund match requirements, as well as to reduce the amount of BJA
    discretionary funding. Local and State agencies require more, not less,
    funding to fight the Nation's crime problem. RISS cannot make up the
    decrease in funding that a match would cause, and it has no revenue
    source of its own. Cutting the RISS appropriation by requiring a match
    should not be imposed on the program.
        Funding is requested to support the increased needs of law
    enforcement and public safety entities, to maintain RISSNET, and to
    meet the demand for RISS services and resources. These funds will
    enable RISS to continue services to law enforcement agencies to
    identify, target, prosecute, and remove criminal conspirators involved
    in terrorism and other crimes that span multijurisdictional boundaries.
    In addition, RISS will utilize increased funds to:
      --Deploy RISSafe on a nationwide scale and integrate RISSafe with
            intelligence systems and other deconfliction systems.
      --Expand the existing RISSGang Program by developing and implementing
            online gang-related training programs and minimum standards for
            such training programs.
      --Develop and implement a gang deconfliction system.
      --Coordinate and host a regional/and or national gang conference.
      --Expand fusion center partnerships by connecting fusion centers,
            providing bidirectional sharing, and offering technical on-site
            assistance.
      --Expand RISS ATIX to accommodate the growing number of public and
            private sector entities requiring secure communications.
      --Upgrade and maintain the RISSNET infrastructure. Upgrade hardware,
            operating systems, and portal framework software for the
            RISSNET Portal.
      --Implement the Trusted Credential Project.
        RISS is grateful for this opportunity to provide the committee with
    this testimony and appreciate the support this committee has
    continuously provided to the RISS Program. (See Attachment A)
            attachment a.--the regional information sharing systems
        Each RISS center offers basic services to member agencies.
    Traditional services include information sharing, analysis,
    investigative support, equipment loans, confidential funds, training,
    and technical assistance.
        Information Sharing.--The operation of RISSNET and its various
    applications enhances information sharing and communications among RISS
    members by providing various secure databases and investigative tools.
    Each RISS center develops and provides access to specialized
    information sharing systems for use by its member agencies.
        Analysis.--RISS center personnel create analytical products for
    investigative and prosecutorial use. These products include highly
    complex and specialized flowcharts, link-analysis charts, crime scene
    diagrams, telephone toll analysis reports, and financial analysis
    reports and provide computer forensics analysis. Staff members also
    provide video and audio enhancement services.
        Investigative Support.--Each center maintains a staff of
    intelligence technicians that support member agencies with a variety of
    investigative assistance. Staff members conduct database searches,
    utilize all RISS applications, and process batch uploads. Intelligence
    technicians respond to thousands of requests and questions.
        Equipment Loans.--Pools of specialized and surveillance equipment
    are available for loan to member agencies for use in support of
    multijurisdictional investigations.
        Confidential Funds.--Member agencies may apply for funds to
    purchase information, contraband, stolen property, and other items of
    an evidentiary nature or to provide for other investigative expenses
    related to multijurisdictional investigations. The availability and use
    of confidential funds are strictly controlled by Federal guidelines,
    and internal policies and procedures are developed by each center.
        Training and Publications.--RISS centers sponsor or cosponsor
    meetings and conferences that build investigative expertise for member
    agency personnel. Subject areas include anti-terrorism, crime-specific
    investigative and surveillance techniques, specialized equipment,
    officer safety, and analytical techniques. In addition, each center
    researches, develops, and distributes numerous publications, such as
    bulletins, flyers, and criminal intelligence publications.
        Technical Assistance.--RISS field service coordinators provide
    technical assistance to member agencies to facilitate delivery of RISS
    services. This personal interaction with member agencies significantly
    improves information sharing and ensures that member agencies are
    provided with quality and timely service.
        Centers also offer additional services based on regional and member
    agency needs.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony to this
    Committee to provide our funding requests on the Department of Commerce
    fiscal year 2009 appropriations. My name is Billy Frank, and I am the
    Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The
    NWIFC is made up of the twenty Tribes party to the United States vs.
    Washington litigation. The NWIFC supports an increase in funding over
    that proposed by the Administration for both the NOAA Fisheries and the
    NOAA-National Ocean Service (NOS) budgets. These budgets should, at a
    minimum, be that of the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, with
    additional monies as described below that support key Federal and State
    partnerships with the twenty (20) Treaty Indian Tribes in Western
    Washington.

               SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
                            NWIFC SPECIFIC REQUESTS

        $110 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund with a $9
    million allocation for the twenty affected Treaty Tribes and the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission in Western Washington for their
    management responsibilities (NOAA/National Marine Fisheries).
        $3.17 million for the Tribal Ocean Ecosystem Initiative (NOAA/
    National Ocean Service).

                           JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS

    $110 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, as well as related agreements. PCSRF is making
    a significant contribution to the recovery of wild salmon throughout
    the region.
        The Tribes' objectives for use of the PCSRF is to restore and
    protect essential habitat that promotes the recovery of ESA listed
    Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer chum, Puget Sound steelhead,
    Lake Ozette sockeye, and other salmon populations in the Puget Sound
    and Washington Coast. These species are essential for Western
    Washington Tribes to exercise their treaty-reserved fishing rights
    consistent with U.S. vs. Washington and Hoh vs. Baldrige. These funds
    will support policy and technical capacities within Tribal resource
    management departments to plan, implement, and monitor recovery
    activities.
        Since the program's inception, Pacific Coastal Tribes, including
    the 20 Treaty Tribes in Western Washington, have used PCSRF monies to
    remove 79 fish passage barriers--open access to 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 also using these funds to implement the recovery
    plan for ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook recently approved by NOAA.
        Unfortunately, the PCSRF monies have decreased over the past few
    years from the original amount of $110 million that was appropriated in
    2000 to $67 million in 2008. In the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal
    the Administration seeks to further decrease funding to $35 million for
    this very important program. The Tribes originally were slated to
    receive 10 percent of the overall amount, but with the declining base,
    the Tribal amount has dwindled precipitously. Restoration of these
    monies to the $110 million level will support the original intent of
    Congress and enable the Federal government to fill its obligations to
    salmon recovery and the Tribes.
    $3.17 million for Tribal Ocean Ecosystem Initiative from the National
            Ocean Service
        The Hoh River Tribe, Makah Tribe, Quileute Tribe, and the Quinault
    Indian Nation have deep connections to the marine resources off the
    coast of Washington. They have pioneered cooperative partnerships with
    the State of Washington and the Federal government in an effort to
    advance the management practices in the coastal waters. However, to be
    an effective partnership, the Tribes and their partners need additional
    funding. These requests are as follows:
                Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC) $1.10 million
        The four Tribes, the State of Washington and NOAA National Ocean
    Service, through the Marine Sanctuary Program, have formed the
    Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC). The IPC is intended to
    strengthen management partnerships through coordination and focus of
    work efforts. Through this partnership, the entities hope to maximize
    resource protection and management, while respecting existing
    jurisdictional and management authorities. While the IPC has received
    some funding from the Marine Sanctuary Program, the current funding
    does not provide for full participation in activities that will build
    the partnerships necessary to coordinate management and research
    activities within the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
        For the IPC to continue to expand its capacity for program
    operations, technical staff participation and development of
    collaborative research efforts, long-term program funding is needed.
    The four coastal treaty Indian Tribes, the State of Washington and the
    Olympic Marine Sanctuary needs $1.10 million in fiscal year 2009 to
    support their IPC efforts to transition into an ocean ecosystem-based
    management system.
        As existing marine resource management transitions to an ecosystem-
    based management approach a forum and coordinating body such as the IPC
    will need the capacity to collect and organize information that will
    propel discussions and recommendations into decisions and actions.
                Rockfish Assessment and Habitat Mapping $2.07 million
        The Hoh River Tribe, Makah Tribe, Quileute Tribe, Quinault Indian
    Nation and the state hope to conduct a five-year ocean monitoring and
    research initiative to support and transition into an ecosystem-based
    management of rockfish. The proposal would augment the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration existing Northwest Science Center trawl
    survey data with additional State and Tribal survey data from areas
    currently not sampled on the continental shelf and slope. It would also
    expand the existing groundfish port sampling program for the region.
    Both of these data sources are essential to evaluate stock status and
    abundance. Finally, it would accomplish a comprehensive assessment of
    the coastal ecosystem and its associated species groups.
        Effective management of the ocean ecosystem and its associated
    resources requires the development of baseline information against
    which changes can be measured. This initiative will expand on and
    complement existing physical and biological databases to enhance
    ecosystem-based management capabilities. In turn, this will support
    ongoing efforts by the State and Tribes to become more actively engaged
    in the management of offshore fishery resources. Transition to
    ecosystem-based management requires expansion of the current resource
    assessment surveys and ocean monitoring systems off the Olympic coast.
        Effective conservation actions for rockfish and other groundfish
    species will depend on accurate knowledge and distribution of sea-floor
    habitat types and species found within the region. The establishment of
    this finer-scale biological database is an essential step toward
    improving the region's forecasting capability of stock status and
    abundance.
        The partners hope to:
      --Conduct a comprehensive stock assessment of rockfish resources
            found along the continental shelf and slope off the Olympic
            coast and enhance the existing groundfish port sampling
            efforts.
      --Convene a State, Tribal and Federal technical workgroup to develop
            the sampling protocols and assessment methodologies necessary
            to incorporate this additional survey information into the
            annual Federal stock assessment and forecasting process.
      --Increase biological sampling through the expansion of State and
            Tribal port sampling in Westport, La Push and Neah Bay to
            ensure complete coverage of all groundfish fisheries (such as
            sablefish, flatfish and lingcod), of which rockfish are a
            component of the catch.
      --Complete multi-beam side-scan sonar mapping and surveying of the
            seabed off the Olympic coast in cooperation and partnership
            with the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
      --Collaborate on a research plan with the Olympic Coast National
            Marine Sanctuary and assist in completing the sonar mapping of
            seafloor relief and substrate.
      --Develop a State and Tribal collaborative effort to address emerging
            ecosystem management concerns such as the status and abundance
            of deep-water coral and sponge communities that benefit the
            entire region.
        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 identified problems.

                                   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. vs. 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
    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 Pacific Ocean. 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 with major studies by
    the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Charitable Trust. 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 of this resource, 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.
        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. However, 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 is more knowledgeable about
    the natural resources than the Tribes. No one else so deeply depends on
    the resource for their cultural, spiritual and economic survival.
    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 resource recovery and habitat restoration
    on an equal level with the State of Washington and the Federal
    government because we understand the great value of such cooperation.
        We ask that the Senate help us in our efforts to protect and
    restore our great natural heritage and support our funding requests.
    Thank you.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the United States Section of the Pacific Salmon
                                   Commission

        Mr. Chairman, my name is W. Ron Allen and I serve as an Alternate
    Commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and as 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 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 2009, the PSC will implement new Treaty fishing
    regimes that are currently being renegotiated. The U.S. Section
    recommends that Congress:
      --fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty Line Item of the National Marine
            Fisheries Service at $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, restoring
            $1,000,000 previously provided by Congress in fiscal year 2005.
            This funding provides the technical support for the states of
            Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Idaho and the National Marine
            Fisheries Service to implement the salmon stock assessment and
            fishery management programs required to implement the Treaty
            fishing regimes. Included within the total amount of $8,000,000
            is $400,000 to continue a joint Transboundary River Enhancement
            Program as required by the Treaty.
      --fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Salmon Agreement line item
            of the National Marine Fisheries Service for fiscal year 2009
            at $1,844,000, level funding from what was provided by Congress
            for fiscal year 2008. This funding continues to be necessary to
            acquire the technical information to implement abundance-based
            Chinook salmon management program provided for under the
            Treaty.
        The base Treaty implementation projects include a wide range of
    stock assessment, fishery monitoring, and technical support activities
    for all five species of Pacific salmon in the fisheries and rivers from
    Southeast Alaska to those of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The states
    of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS), are charged with carrying out a major portion
    of the salmon fishery stock assessment and harvest management actions
    required under the Treaty. Federal funding for these activities is
    provided through NMFS on an annual basis. The agency projects carried
    out under PSC funding are directed toward acquiring, analyzing, and
    sharing the information required to implement the salmon conservation
    and sharing principles of the Treaty. A wide range of programs for
    salmon stock size assessments, escapement enumeration, stock
    distribution, and catch and effort information from fisheries, are
    represented. The information from many of these programs is used
    directly to establish fishing seasons and harvest levels.
        Congress increased this funding 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 in subsequent years. The U.S. Section
    recommends that $8,000,000 be restored in fiscal year 2009 to allow
    full implementation of Treaty provisions. The 1999 Agreement and the
    fishery regimes currently being renegotiated, include fishing
    arrangements and abundance-based management approaches for Chinook,
    southern coho, Northern Boundary and Transboundary River fisheries. The
    $400,000 that has been provided since 1988 for a joint Transboundary
    River enhancement program with Canada is included in this amount.
        In 1996, the United States adopted an abundance-based approach to
    managing Chinook salmon fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Under this
    approach, Chinook harvest levels are based on annual estimates of
    Chinook abundance. This system replaced fixed harvest ceilings agreed
    to in 1985, which did not respond to annual fluctuations in Chinook
    salmon populations. Under the 1999 Agreement, this abundance-based
    management approach was expanded to all Chinook fisheries subject to
    the Treaty. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, Congress provided $1,844,000
    to allow for the collection of necessary stock assessment and fishery
    management information to implement the new approach. Through a
    rigorous competitive technical review process, the states of Alaska,
    Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the twenty-four treaty tribes are
    using the funding to support research and data collection needed 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 2009 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 2009 NMFS Pacific Salmon Treaty line item.
        This concludes the statement of the U.S. Section of the PSC
    submitted for consideration by your Committee. We wish to thank the
    Committee for the support that it has given us in the past.

      SUMMARY OF PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE U.S.-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of Commerce: Pacific Salmon Treaty Line
     Item:
        Fiscal year 2007 appropriation....................        $7,000,000
        Fiscal year 2008 appropriation \1\................         5,592,000
        Fiscal year 2009 administration request...........         5,616,000
        Fiscal year 2009 U.S. Section recommendation......         8,000,000
    Pacific Salmon Treaty--Chinook Salmon Agreement Line
     Item:
        Fiscal year 2007 appropriation....................         1,844,000
        Fiscal year 2008 appropriation....................         1,844,000
        Fiscal year 2009 administration request...........         1,844,000
        Fiscal year 2009 U.S. Section recommendation......         1,844,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 Independent Tribal Courts Review Team

        Thank you and I am honored for the opportunity to submit this
    testimony on behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. I
    would like to address the serious funding needs of Tribal Courts and
    our requests and recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 budget for
    the Office of Tribal Justice in the Department of Justice.
        For the past two years, our Independent Review Team, under a
    commercial contract by the BIA, has been traveling throughout Indian
    Country reviewing 25 Tribal and CFR Courts. The scope of our research
    project, the first of its kind, was to: (1) Provide assistance to
    Tribes by performing an assessment of their Tribal Courts; and (2)
    provide information to the BIA and Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) regarding the status of Tribal Courts.
        We are confident that this is the most comprehensive information
    compilation effort ever undertaken, and completed, regarding Tribal
    Courts and it is the strong recommendation of the Independent Tribal
    Courts Review Team that the Federal Tribal Courts budget be
    substantially increased in the fiscal year 2009 budget. Our Team has
    been to 25 Tribal Courts and we feel safe in saying that there is no
    one with more awareness of the current needs of Tribal Courts than our
    Review Team.
    Budget Priorities, Request and Recommendations--$70.0 Million
        +$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of
    1993, Public Law 103-176, 25 USC 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000
    Public Law 106-559 (no funds to date).
        +$11.6 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level for Tribal
    Courts.
        Support the continuance of set-asides in the Office of Tribal
    Justice Programs.

    Justification
        There are approximately 299 tribal judicial systems in Indian
    country and 156 of these tribal and BIA Courts of Indian Offenses,
    commonly referred to as CFR Courts (Code of Federal Regulations), are
    BIA funded. All Tribal Court operational costs are funded under
    contracts, which provide less than 74 percent of need.
        The President's fiscal year 2008 enacted levels are inadequate to
    support the operations and utility of the Tribal Justice Systems. We
    respectfully request Congress to take a close look at these funding
    levels. Our research did not identify any area that could withstand a
    decrease without causing harm to Tribal Court systems and Indian
    people. Specifically, we request the following funding in the fiscal
    year 2009 budget above the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal Year 2008  Fiscal Year 2009
                 Line Items                    Enacted       Tribal Requests
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tribal Courts.......................    $8.630 million    +$11.6 million
    Tribal Grants:
        Youth Programs..................      14.1 million       +10 million
        Indian Alcohol & Substance Abuse     5.180 million       +10 million
        Construction....................     8.630 million       +10 million
        Sex Offender....................           940,000        +5 million
    Indian Country Detention Centers....     8.630 million       +10 million
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Justice Department has developed grants for a variety of
    current Tribal Courts programs. Unfortunately, those grants will
    eventually run out and it is doubtful that most Tribes will have the
    funds to continue to provide those services. Some Tribes,
    unfortunately, do not place a priority on seeking grant funds for
    exactly this reason. In addition, some of those grants fund what are
    generally considered to be permanent Court needs, such as Judge or
    clerk. As Examiners, we mention to Tribes that they should not rely on
    grant funds as permanent funding. However, most Tribes have few other
    means to fund permanent positions. Federal resources used for temporary
    grant-funded Tribe Court initiatives too often turn out to be temporary
    programs. (We also note that the Tribes who need the most assistance
    tend to be the Tribes least able to acquire grant funds.) We wonder if
    it would be better if such funding were placed into a permanent Tribal
    Court funding account.
        It is a positive thing if a Tribe has recognized some Court needs
    and used its grant writers to find grant money to address those needs.
    To decrease the potential for harm when those funds are discontinued,
    those programs should contain or require the Tribe to develop formal
    plans for when the funds no longer exist. This would include, for
    example, redistribution of a caseload, records transfer and seeking new
    continuation funding. We general recommend the Court develop formal
    plans to address what will happen to projects in planning for the
    eventual loss of grant funds, particularly for those projects and
    positions, which would otherwise be considered permanent.
        It is to the credit of many Tribes that they do seek and have had
    success in obtaining grant funds for the Courts. Grant funds enable the
    Court to supplement staff or develop programs needed by the Tribe.
    Several areas, funded through grants, have proven to be successful,
    regardless of how brief the grant is and regardless of the relative
    size and wealth of the Tribe. This includes Computerization, Staff
    Development and Training, Code Development and grants curbing
    Methamphetamine Abuse.
        Tribes are expected to make do with money from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA). The elimination of these funds will be catastrophic to
    the Tribal Courts and Judicial Systems. The remaining funds will only
    assist a small number of Tribes, hardly the intent of the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act. It was the intent of all involved to examine and determine
    the adequacy of the current Federal funding levels for Tribal Courts.
    Our research indicates that Tribal Courts are at a critical stage in
    terms of need. Tribal Court systems have Trial and Appellate Courts,
    conduct jury trials, within Courthouses that need improvements, and
    Tribal Bar listings and fees. Nationwide, there are 156 Tribes with
    Courts that receive Federal Funding. These Tribes divide a mere $11.4
    million in Federal funds. Tribal Courts must deal with the very same
    issues state and Federal Courts confront in the criminal context,
    including, child sexual abuse, alcohol and substance abuse, (namely
    Methamphetamine), gang violence and violence against women just to name
    a few. Tribal Courts, however, must address these complex issues with
    far less financial resources than their Federal and state counterparts.
        It is clear that Tribal Courts and justice systems are vital and
    important to the communities where they are located. Tribes value and
    want to be proud of their Court systems. There are many positive
    aspects about Tribal Courts. After decades of existence, many Tribal
    Courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a level of experience
    and sophistication approaching, and in some cases surpassing, local
    non-Indian Courts. Tribal Courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act,
    have mostly stopped the wholesale removal of Indian children from their
    families. Indian and Non-Indian Courts have developed formal and
    informal agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal governments have
    recognized the benefit of having law-trained Judges, without doing away
    with Judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Judicial training
    that addresses the existing problems in Indian Country, while also
    being culturally sensitive, is essential if our efforts are to be
    effective in deterring and solving crime in Indian communities.
        With the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, Public Law 103-
    176, 25 U.S.C.  3601 et seq. (the ``Act''), Congress found that
    ``[T]ribal justice systems are an essential part of tribal governments
    and serve as important forums for ensuring public health, safety and
    the political integrity of tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C.  3601(5).
    Congress found that ``tribal justice systems are inadequately funded,
    and the lack of adequate funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C.
    3601(8). In order to remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized
    appropriation of base funding support for tribal justice systems in the
    amount of $50 million for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000.
    25 U.S.C.  3621(b). An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal
    years was authorized to be appropriated for the administration of
    Tribal Judicial Conferences for the ``development, enhancement and
    continuing operation of tribal justice systems . . .'' 25 U.S.C.
    3614.
        Our research also indicates that grant programs at Justice were
    only moderately effective. Tribes often did not have funding to
    maintain grant funded programs after the conclusion of the grant. These
    programs were often eliminated after the conclusion of the grant. We
    did, however, identify several areas where grants were, or could be
    effective. These are grants providing for:
      --Computer Upgrade, Training and Court Management Software.--Tribes
            generally do not have available funds to upgrade their use of
            computer technology. Increased use of computer technology
            improves the function of the Court and even may result in Court
            staff savings due to the decreased staff time needs.
      --Digitizing of Tribal Codes.--Tribes most often collect their Codes
            in very large three ring binders. Everyone does not always
            receive new law. It is difficult to obtain a copy of the Code.
            If Codes are digitized, they can be easily distributed on CD
            and even be placed on the Tribal website. The result is a more
            efficient system
      --Development of MOU/MOAs with Local Non-Indian Jurisdictions.--There
            is a large and growing problem resulting from the Oliphant
            Case. Tribal jurisdictions have no control over unlawful acts
            committed by non-Indian offenders. This has specifically
            resulted in drug dealers and methamphetamine labs moving on to
            Indian lands. Many Tribes and non-Indian jurisdictions have
            developed MOU/MOAs that provide for jurisdictional compromise
            between Law Enforcement and Courts. More of these agreements
            should be encouraged.
      --Administration of Tribal Courts.--Tribal legislatures and
            Administration generally have several areas of relationship;
            including hiring, payroll, and financial administration of the
            Court. Often, Tribal governments are confused and very
            concerned about where to draw the line regarding the
            relationship with the Court. They do not want to violate the
            Courts independence. Tribes need help to formally develop the
            relationship between the Courts and other governmental
            entities. This may include such things as development of an
            over-site committee and a judicial employment contract.

    Independent Tribal Court Review Team Report Findings
        The Independent Tribal Court Review Team completed the Tribal & CFR
    Court Reviews Project Fiscal Year 2006 Final Report. The Report
    contains 132 findings regarding all areas involving Tribal Courts. Many
    of the findings support the recommendations made above, including
    several indicating that Tribal Courts are under-funded. We list some of
    these below:
      --Finding #38.--The Federal Funds are inadequate to fund most Court
            needs. Other Court needs such as technology, supplies, travel
            and training, are usually assumed by the Tribe. These needs are
            often provided by decreasing available funds for Tribal
            Programs. Or, the needs are simply not provided and the Courts
            must make due without these services.
      --Finding #32.--Almost all Courts are under-funded. Court budgets
            vary widely. When you get beyond the few Tribes with very
            successful economic development ventures, a substantial number
            of the Courts, approximately 90 percent, are under-funded. They
            are missing staff positions and common items such as a safe, a
            Court recording system, telephone systems, or security systems.
            Almost every Court that is under-funded is still mostly
            functional.
      --Finding #33.--Many are under-funded at a critical level. Some
            contracted Courts are very poor. There are Courts with only a
            part-time Judge and a Clerk. They must rely on Administration
            for simple items, such as printer ink. There is no training.
            Salaries are below the poverty level. We have seen Courts that
            operate on less than $25,000 per year. We have seen groups of
            Tribes with low Federal funding numbers joined into a single
            overworked Court system that can only provide limited service.
      --Finding #6.--A very small number of Tribes have large amounts of
            available economic development funds. These Tribes (about 10
            percent) are those few with very successful economic
            development ventures. These Tribes contribute 90 percent or
            more of the funding to their Courts. These Tribes pay well,
            they have several Attorneys on staff, including on the Court
            staff and have fully funded law enforcement. These Tribes are
            better trained and experientially and financially able to deal
            with Court matters, including criminal matters, than local
            city, county and state governments.
      --Finding #5.--Most Tribal economic development funds provide jobs
            and pay for a modest amount of other governmental services. The
            biggest fallacy about Indian Nations is that gaming has made
            all Tribes rich. (This fallacy isn't always bad. It often
            encourages non-Indian governments and law enforcement to work
            with the Tribe.) The vast majority of Tribes has limited
            economic development that (1) funds itself and (2) can modestly
            assist Tribal programs and the Court budgets. A portion of
            Tribes has no economic development or economic development that
            only funds itself.
        Finally, the Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States
    Civil Rights Commission, June 1991 found that ``the failure of the
    United States Government to provide proper funding for the operation of
    tribal judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.''
    The Commission also noted that ``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems
    may be further hampered in some instances by the pressures of competing
    priorities within a tribe.'' Moreover, they opined that ``If the United
    States Government is to live up to its trust obligations, it must
    assist tribal governments in their development . . .'' More than
    sixteen years ago, the Commission ``strongly support[ed] the pending
    and proposed Congressional initiatives to authorize funding of Tribal
    Courts in an amount equal to that of an equivalent State Court'' and
    was ``hopeful that this increased funding [would] allow for much needed
    increases in salaries for judges, the retention of law clerks for
    tribal judges, the funding of public defenders/defense counsel and
    increased access to legal authorities.''
        We are still hopeful that these recommendations will come to
    fruition!
        On behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team: Charles D.
    Robertson Jr., Esquire, the Honorable Philip D. Lujan, Court Reporter
    Myrna Rivera and the Honorable Elbridge Coochise, thank you again for
    your consideration of these requests. Should you have any questions,
    please feel free to contact Team Leader Elbridge Coochise at 602-418-
    8937 or Charles D. Robertson, Jr. at 605-390-0061.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society

        The American Chemical Society (ACS) appreciates the opportunity to
    submit public testimony to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
    Agencies Subcommittee on the fiscal year 2009 budget for the National
    Science Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
        The ACS is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization,
    chartered by Congress in 1937, with more than 160,000 chemical
    scientists and engineers as members. The world's largest scientific
    society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public
    understanding of chemistry and science, and brings its expertise to
    bear on state and national matters.
        Investments in NIST advanced research, measurement methods, and
    standards are vital to American industry as well as the nation's
    economic competitiveness and security. Increased funding is necessary
    to meet ongoing private sector needs for NIST measurements and
    standards, as well as the growing needs in homeland security, advanced
    manufacturing, climate, and nanotechnology. America's future
    competitiveness will be enhanced through sustained, predictable federal
    investments in science agencies like NIST.
        Specifically, the ACS urges Congress to support the $634 million
    funding level (5.5 percent increase over fiscal year 2008) for the NIST
    core programs as outlined in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget
    request. While this falls short of the level authorized to enhance U.S.
    innovation and competitiveness in the America COMPETES Act passed last
    summer with overwhelming bipartisan support, we hope that Congress will
    strive to return to this funding blueprint over time. Additionally, the
    ACS supports the $535 million request for NIST laboratories (21.3
    percent increase over fiscal year 2008). However, we strongly dissent
    from the proposed termination of the Technology Innovation Program
    (TIP) and urge Congress to fund the program at its authorized level of
    $131.5 million.

    NIST Laboratories
        NIST laboratories serve as the technological nerve center for
    countless products and services across industries. By advancing
    research and extremely accurate measurement technology, NIST enables
    universal quality-control technologies that undergird industrial
    productivity, efficiency improvements, and faster product development.
    NIST also plays a critical role in advancing public health and safety,
    environmental progress, and national security. For example, NIST's
    calibration and related measurement methods are critical in areas such
    as emission control, fuel-composition control, laser eye surgery,
    smoke-detector sensitivity, electricity-meter readings, energy-
    efficiency measurement, and the operation of fiber optics. The ACS
    strongly supports the $535 million request for NIST laboratories.
        However, we remain concerned that recent cuts in standards-related
    programs have hampered NIST's ability to promote U.S. standards and to
    facilitate global trade. Without NIST's consensus-based measurement
    standards, companies would be less innovative, less efficient, and less
    competitive. Independent studies show that every dollar invested in
    NIST measurement and standards returns at least three dollars in
    national economic benefit.
        Additionally, the ACS supports the request for $99 million for NIST
    facilities. These funds support facility improvements and acquisition
    of cutting-edge equipment in Boulder, Colorado, and Gaithersburg,
    Maryland. In previous years, in excess of $100 million was used
    annually to support projects peripheral to the NIST mission. As a
    result, NIST facilities are suffering to the point of becoming
    ineffective for cutting-edge research.

    Technology Innovation Program
        The ACS continues to support NIST's Technology Innovation Program
    (TIP), established to support, promote, and accelerate innovation in
    the United States through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of
    critical national need. This program enables small- and medium-sized
    businesses to work in joint ventures and with universities to
    commercialize high-risk technologies. Without this program, the United
    States would continue to be at a global competitive disadvantage if
    these businesses, the traditional incubators of innovation, could not
    pursue high-risk opportunities. ACS strongly opposes the
    administration's proposed termination of TIP. We urge Congress to fully
    fund TIP (as was the practice to restore funding to the Advanced
    Technology Program--TIP's predecessor) at the $131.5 million level
    authorized by the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69) for fiscal
    year 2009.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute

        To the Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: The American
    Geological Institute (AGI) supports fundamental Earth science research
    sustained by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute
    of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA). Frontier research on Earth, energy and the
    environment has fueled economic growth, mitigated losses and sustained
    our quality of life. The Subcommittee's leadership in expanding the
    federal investment in basic research is even more critical as our
    nation competes with rapidly developing countries, such as China and
    India, for energy, mineral, air and water resources. Our nation needs
    skilled geoscientists to help explore, assess and develop Earth's
    resources in a strategic, sustainable and environmentally-sound manner
    and to help understand, evaluate and reduce our risks to hazards. AGI
    supports a total budget of $7.32 billion for NSF (as authorized in the
    America COMPETES Act of 2007--Public Law 110-69); $542 million for
    Scientific and Technical Research and Services at NIST (as authorized
    in America COMPETES Act); $4.5 billion for NOAA (an increase of $400
    million over the request to maintain core programs and infrastructure),
    and $4.869 billion for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA (an
    increase of about $428 million over the request to maintain core
    research and missions).
        The President's American Competitiveness Initiative and the America
    COMPETES Act of 2007 supports a doubling of physical science research
    at NSF and NIST, while noting the importance of robust research and
    science education programs at NASA and NOAA. AGI strongly supports both
    initiatives and the inclusion of Earth science in such efforts.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional
    societies representing more than 100,000 geologists, geophysicists, and
    other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information
    services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for shared interests in
    our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience
    education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role
    the geosciences play in society's use of resources and interaction with
    the environment.

    NSF
        We applaud the President's request for a 13 percent increase for an
    overall budget of $6.854 billion for NSF and the Administration's
    commitment to the American Competitiveness Initiative. We hope that the
    Subcommittee can strengthen our research and science education
    initiatives by funding NSF at an overall budget of $7.32 billion which
    is consistent with the amount authorized in the America COMPETES Act of
    2007. NSF remains under funded and would benefit from an increase of
    about $466 million over the request in fiscal year 2009. AGI believes
    that such a forward-looking investment in tight fiscal times will pay
    important dividends in future development and innovation that drives
    economic growth, especially in critical areas of sustainable and
    economic natural resources and reduced risks from natural hazards.
        NSF Geosciences Directorate.--The Geosciences Directorate is the
    principal source of federal support for academic Earth scientists and
    their students who are seeking to understand the processes that
    ultimately sustain and transform life on this planet. The President's
    budget proposal requests an increase of about 13 percent (about $96
    million) for a total budget of about $849 million, which AGI strongly
    supports.
        The President's request for fiscal year 2009 asks for $260.58
    million for Atmospheric Sciences, $177.73 million for Earth Sciences,
    $353.5 million for Ocean Sciences and $56.82 million for Innovative and
    Collaborative Education and Research (ICER) within the Geosciences
    Directorate. Much of the geosciences research budget is for
    understanding that is critical for current national needs, such as
    climate change, water and mineral resources, energy resources,
    environmental issues and mitigation of natural hazards. AGI asks the
    Subcommittee to strongly support these essential investments and
    requests that these investments be used for research.
        A significant concern for NSF and GEO is the rising costs of
    materials, infrastructure, and operations and maintenance. Costs for
    drilling, ships, instrumentation and raw materials are sky-rocketing as
    the supply and demand for these has increased in the public and private
    sector. Unexpected shortages, increasing competition and growing demand
    is significantly increasing the cost of basic research in GEO. This is
    one reason for NSF's decision to defer the Alaska Region Research
    Vessel (ARRV) and the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) which would
    receive no funding from the Major Research Equipment and Facilities
    Construction (MREFC) account, but would instead receive about $7.5
    million from the GEO Research and Related Activities account for
    planning.
        Infrastructure and operation and maintenance costs for facilities
    are coming directly from the research budget within GEO. Among the
    major facilities, the Academic Research Fleet would receive $87.96
    million, EarthScope Operation would receive $26.29 million,
    Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) would receive
    $12.2 million, Ocean Drilling Activities would receive $47.4 million,
    Ocean Observatories would receive $10.5 million and the National Center
    for Atmospheric Research would receive $95.42 million. These facilities
    are essential for not only basic research but also for addressing
    critical issues facing the nation, such as climate change, energy and
    mineral resources, water resources and hazards mitigation. Funding for
    these facilities, many of which have been operating for decades, must
    remain robust and require an infusion of funds approaching $300
    million. Therefore AGI strongly supports the congressionally mandated
    budget of $7.32 billion for NSF in fiscal year 2009 and asks that a
    significant fraction of the $466 million increase relative to the
    President's request be used to support facilities, whose operating
    funds are coming from the research budget of GEO.
        We would encourage the general increase for GEO to focus on funding
    research, which means providing essential support to the faculty,
    staff, post-doctoral researchers, graduate students and undergraduate
    students at universities and other educational/research institutions
    across the nation. The outstanding facilities being maintained by GEO
    require investments in outstanding human capital through competitive
    research grants. Now is the time to boost Earth science research and
    education to fill the draining pipeline of skilled geoscientists and
    geo-engineers working in the energy industry; the construction
    industry, particularly on levees and dams; the environmental industry;
    the academic community, particularly on understanding natural hazards
    and the sustainability of our natural resources; the primary federal
    Earth science agencies, such as the United States Geological Survey;
    and in all areas of education.
        NSF Support for Earth Science Education.--Congress can improve the
    nation's scientific literacy by supporting the full integration of
    Earth science information into mainstream science education at the K-12
    and college levels. AGI supports the Math and Science Partnership (MSP)
    program, a competitive peer-reviewed grant program that funds only the
    highest quality proposals at NSF. The NSF's MSP program focuses on
    modeling, testing and identification of high-quality math and science
    activities whereas the Department of Education MSP program does not.
    The NSF and Department of Education MSP programs are complementary and
    are both necessary to continue to reach the common goal of providing
    world-class science and mathematics education to elementary and
    secondary school students. AGI opposes the transfer of the MSP from NSF
    to the Department of Education.

    NOAA
        AGI appreciates the President's request for increased funding for
    NOAA for a total budget of $4.1 billion. Unfortunately, NOAA's funding
    has remained flat, at $3.9 billion since fiscal year 2005 and based on
    an annual inflation rate of 3 percent a budget of $4.4 billion in
    fiscal year 2009 would leave the agency's budget level in constant
    dollars. NOAA cannot support its core mission services including
    weather and severe storm forecasting, spill response, ocean observing,
    habitat restoration and conservation, and research on climate change,
    fisheries, and coastal and marine ecosystems without a more robust
    budget. We ask that the Subcommittee provide small increases (about 10
    percent increases to their total budgets) rather than proposed cuts to
    the National Ocean Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and
    the Office of Atmospheric Research following the recommendations of the
    U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. AGI also supports the additional
    increased funding for the National Weather Service for analysis,
    modeling and upgrading of observing systems and additional increases
    for the National Environment Satellite, Data and Information Service
    for the development of the Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellite (GOES-R) and the National Polar-Orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). Both satellite systems will
    maintain a global view of the planet to continuously watch for
    atmospheric triggers of severe weather conditions such as tornadoes,
    flash floods, hailstorms, and hurricanes.

    NIST
        We applaud the President's request for a 22 percent increase in
    research and related funding for NIST in fiscal 2009. Basic research at
    NIST is conducted by Earth scientists and geotechnical engineers and
    used by Earth scientists, geotechnical engineers and many others on a
    daily basis. In particular, we strongly support increases for
    Measurements and Standards for the Climate Change Science Program ($5
    million), Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities ($4 million)
    and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) ($3.3
    million). The climate change research will improve the accuracy of
    climate change measurements, may reduce satellite costs and may help to
    guide climate change policy. The hazards research will help to reduce
    the estimated average of $52 billion in annual losses caused by floods,
    fires and earthquakes. NIST is the lead agency for NEHRP, but has
    received only a small portion of authorized and essential funding in
    the past. AGI strongly supports a doubling of the NIST budget over 5 to
    7 years as authorized in the America COMPETES Act of 2007, so that core
    research functions at NIST are maintained, while needed funding for
    climate change and hazards are protected.

    NASA
        AGI supports the vital Earth observing programs within NASA.
    Currently the topography of Mars has been measured at a more
    comprehensive and higher resolution than Earth's surface. While AGI is
    excited about space exploration and the President's Vision for
    Exploration, we firmly believe that NASA's Earth observing program is
    effective and essential to solving global to regional puzzles about
    Earth systems, such as how much and at what rate is the climate
    changing. AGI strongly supports the requested increase for Earth
    Science and Planetary Science programs within the Science Mission
    Directorate.
        The Science Mission Directorate, which includes Earth Science,
    Planetary Science, Astrophysics and Heliophysics, would receive $4.441
    billion in the fiscal year 2009 proposal, a decline of 6 percent or
    $265 million compared to fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. The
    President's fiscal year 2009 budget request would provide $1.3675
    billion for NASA's Earth Science program, a 6.8 percent increase over
    the fiscal year 2008 appropriation to continue with current missions
    and begin development of new missions. AGI is very grateful to see an
    increase for Earth science. Unfortunately, about $570 million of the
    increase created for the decadal survey missions is funded through the
    transfer of funding from other science divisions, resulting in
    reductions in the Mars Exploration Program, a delay to the Solar Probe
    mission and other programmatic cuts. In addition the funding outlook
    does not come close to meeting the $500 million annual increase
    recommended by the National Academies decadal survey report to bring
    the program back to its fiscal year 2000 funding level and enable the
    decadal recommendations.
        AGI asks for a budget of $4.869 billion for the Science Mission
    Directorate at NASA or an increase of about $428 million over the
    President's request. The increase would eliminate the $265 million
    deficit compared to fiscal year 2008 enacted budget for the Science
    Mission Directorate in the President's proposal and would include an
    additional $163 million for the Earth Science program (for a total of
    $1.530 billion in fiscal year 2009). This would bring the Earth Science
    program up to an increase of $250 million about half of what is needed
    to meet the priorities of the decadal survey, but enough to keep key
    missions on track under tight fiscal constraints. We strongly urge the
    Subcommittee to return spending levels for Earth science within NASA to
    fiscal year 2000 levels (eliminating a 30 percent cut over the past 6
    years) and implement the priorities of the National Academies Earth
    Science and Applications from Space Decadal Survey.
        I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
    Subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide
    additional information for the record. I can be reached at 703-379-2480
    ext. 228 (voice), 703-379-7563 (fax), rowan@agiweb.org, or 4220 King
    Street, Alexandria VA 22302-1502.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History

    Overview
        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 American Museum of Natural History (AMNH)
    seeks $3.5 million to advance its successful multi-year collaboration
    with NASA to contribute its unique science, education, and
    technological capacity to helping the Agency to meet these goals.

    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 some 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 for many years engaged in a 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 16 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 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.
      --We have launched a successful program to disseminate project
            resources to informal learning venues nationally and
            internationally, with Science Bulletins already on view in 40
            locations across the country (including eight NASA visitor
            centers), with more being added.
      --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 2009
    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 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.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History

    Overview
        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 American Museum of
    Natural History (AMNH) seeks $2 million to advance a partnership with
    the agency to promote the environmental education, outreach, and
    research so pivotal to the health of our nation and our planet.

    About the American Museum of Natural History
        The 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 2007 symposium, Small Matters: Microbes and
    Their Role in Conservation, brought 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 2008 symposium, Sustaining Cultural
    and Biological Diversity in a Rapidly Changing World: Lessons for
    Global Policy will seek to bridge gaps, address challenges and
    opportunities, and help to forge a long-term multi-dimensional vision
    for sustaining biological and cultural diversity.
        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.

    Environmental Literacy 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 encompassed 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 Senate report), and
    further leveraged by Museum scientists who successfully secured
    competitive NOAA education and research funding.
        Building upon this strong foundation, and in concert with the
    strategic priorities of NOAA and the Museum, we seek $2 million in
    fiscal year 2009 to join with NOAA in education, outreach, and research
    activities that promote environmental literacy, particularly concerning
    climate. Over a one-year period, the Museum will seek to advance the
    nation's climate literacy by carrying out a rich agenda of public
    education and outreach activities, many in conjunction with a major
    national exhibition on climate change. These activities will include
    presenting current climate-related issues and news in the Museum's
    nationally distributed Science Bulletins program; developing advanced
    visualization tools and techniques for presenting environmental data to
    the public in varied formats; developing on-site and online
    professional development offerings, exchanges, and resources for
    teachers, children, families, and students; presenting programs for the
    general public; and carrying out research that advances conservation of
    marine ecosystems systems.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Physiological Society

        The American Physiological Society (APS) thanks the Subcommittee
    for its commitment to scientific research at the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    (NASA). Scientific research plays an important role in technological
    innovation and economic development and therefore is critical to the
    future of our nation. The APS recognizes that the NSF has benefited
    from recent budget increases, but is disappointed that the agency has
    fallen behind the budget levels endorsed by Congress and the
    Administration in the America COMPETES Act passed in 2007. The APS
    recommends that the NSF be funded at the authorized level of $7.33
    billion in fiscal year 2009, which will keep the agency on track to
    double its budget over the next several years. While the overall budget
    for NASA continues to grow, the APS remains concerned about the lack of
    consistent funding for research into the effects of spaceflight on
    humans. The APS recommends that funding for NASA's Human Research
    Program (HRP) be reinvigorated with increased funds in fiscal year
    2009.
        The APS is a professional society dedicated to fostering research
    and education as well as the dissemination of scientific knowledge
    concerning how the organs and systems of the body work. The Society was
    founded in 1887 and now has more than 10,000 members who do research
    and teach at public and private research institutions across the
    country, including colleges, universities, medical and veterinary
    schools. Many of our members conduct physiology research that is
    supported by funds allocated through the NSF and NASA. In this
    testimony, the APS offers its recommendations for fiscal year 2009
    funding for both agencies.

    NSF
        The basic science initiatives funded by the NSF are driven by the
    most fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. Although at times
    NSF-funded research may seem to be exploring questions that lack
    immediate practical application, we have learned again and again that
    the relevance of the knowledge gained becomes apparent over time. The
    NSF provides support for approximately 20 percent of federally funded
    basic science and is the major source of support for non-medical
    biology research, including integrative, comparative, and evolutionary
    biology, as well as interdisciplinary biological research.
        The majority of the funding NSF provides is awarded through
    competitive, merit-based peer review, which ensures that the best
    possible projects are supported. NSF has an excellent record of
    accomplishment in terms of funding research endeavors that have
    produced results with far-reaching potential. Listed below are just a
    few of NSF's most recent advances in biological research.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Research examples from http://www.nsf.gov, accessed March 18,
    2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Scientists have developed computational methods to catalog genes
            involved in memory and learning.
      --Research into the molecular characteristics of degenerative
            neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and the
            human version of Mad Cow disease has revealed similar molecular
            pathology underlying all three diseases.
      --Novel imaging techniques have been developed that could aid in the
            earlier diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, a disease that is
            especially deadly due to delayed detection.
      --Studies of abnormally developed frogs led to the discovery that
            nutrient runoff from agriculture fuels parasitic infections
            that lead to developmental deformities in amphibians.
      --Researchers studying flatworms (planaria) found that the
            connections between cells play a role in regulating how adult
            stem cells contribute to injury repair.
        In addition to funding innovative research in labs around the
    country, the NSF also fosters the next generation of scientists through
    education programs. The APS has benefited from this support which
    allows us to provide training opportunities and career development
    activities to enhance the participation of underrepresented minorities
    in science. The APS was recognized for its efforts in 2003 with a
    Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and
    Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM), funding for which was provided by NSF
    and was reinvested in our education programs. We believe that NSF is
    uniquely suited to administer science education programs of the highest
    quality, and we recommend that Congress continue to provide federal
    funds for science education through the NSF.
        Passage of the America COMPETES Act showed that Congress is
    committed to fostering the NSF not only through increased
    appropriations, but also through explicit support for the agency's
    respected education programs. We thank Congress for the passage of the
    America COMPETES Act and join the Federation of American Societies for
    Experimental Biology (FASEB) in recommending that the NSF be funded at
    the full authorized level of $7.33 billion in fiscal year 2009.

    NASA
        The Human Research Program (HRP) at NASA conducts research and
    develops countermeasures with the goal of enabling safe and productive
    human space exploration. During prolonged space flight, the
    physiological changes that occur due to microgravity, increased
    exposure to radiation, confined living quarters, and alterations in
    eating and sleeping patterns can lead to health problems and reduced
    ability to perform tasks. APS scientists are actively engaged in
    research that explores the physiological basis of these problems, with
    the goal of contributing to the development of countermeasures.
        Given NASA's current focus on manned space exploration, it is
    critical that resources be devoted to research into the health effects
    of prolonged space flight. NASA is the only agency whose mission
    includes addressing the biomedical challenges of manned space
    exploration. Over the years, the amount of money available for
    conducting this kind of research at NASA has dwindled, and this year
    the budget request for the Human Research Program stands at only $151.9
    million. The cuts are especially troubling given the Administration's
    commitment to returning humans to space. NASA and the National
    Institutes of Health signed a memorandum of understanding in 2007 that
    provides a framework for the two agencies to work together and move
    health research forward. While the agreement does not involve any
    funding obligations, we are hopeful that the agencies will develop
    plans to take advantage of the opportunities for collaboration. The APS
    joins FASEB in applauding Congress' call in the fiscal year 2008
    Omnibus bill for NASA to ``establish and ongoing relationship'' with
    the National Academies for the purpose of ``independent project
    review.'' Independent review will help ensure that resources are
    appropriately directed towards critical research programs.
        The APS urges Congress and NASA to increase support for peer-
    reviewed research into the health risks of long-term space flight and
    development of appropriate countermeasures at a rate that meets or
    exceeds the biomedical research and development price index (BRDPI).
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
              Society of America, Soil Science Society of America

        The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
    Soil Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA) are pleased to submit
    the following funding recommendations for fiscal year 2009. ASA/CSSA/
    SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight
    agriculture budget for fiscal year 2009. We also recognize that the
    Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill has many valuable
    and necessary components, and we applaud the efforts of the
    Subcommittee to fund mission-critical research through the National
    Science Foundation.
        With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in the
    United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences. ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these sciences
    through the publication of quality journals and books, convening
    meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and public
    information programs, providing scientific advice to inform public
    policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of agronomy
    and crop and soil sciences.

    Biological Sciences Directorate
                Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB)
        The Molecular and Cellular Biosciences division of NSF Biology
    directorate provides funding for critical research that contributes to
    the fundamental understanding of life processes at the molecular,
    subcellular, and cellular levels. Programs such as the Microbial
    Observatories increase the understanding of microbial distribution in a
    variety of ecosystems--the first step in evaluating microbial impact on
    ecosystem function. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support the proposed increase for MCB
    to $126 million, yet, disagree with the proposed change in priorities.
    Historically, the division focused on understanding living networks and
    complex molecular and cellular systems, microbial biology, and
    fundamental plant biology research. However, priorities for fiscal year
    2009 focus on metagenomics, theoretical and mathematical modeling,
    synthetic biology, small RNA biology, and the role of intracellular
    environment on the dynamic structure and function of complex
    biomolecules. We agree that considerable advances investigating
    interactions between microbial communities and plants have been made,
    however critical gaps do remain requiring additional study to
    understand the complex, dynamic relationships existing between plant
    and microbial communities.
                Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS)
        The emergence of a bioeconomy requires greater reliance on plants
    and crops, further expanding their use into the energy sector. To meet
    the increased demands and develop more robust crops, additional
    fundamental understanding regarding the basic biology of these crops is
    needed. The Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP) accomplishes these
    objectives by supporting key NSF projects. The Developing Country
    Collaborations in Plant Genome Research program links U.S. researchers
    with partners from developing countries to solve problems of mutual
    interest in agriculture and energy and the environment. Additionally,
    in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, the Plant Genome Research Program has
    financed the Maize Genome Sequencing Project--a sequencing project for
    one of the most important crop grown globally. Finally, the
    International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, published in 2005 the
    finished DNA blueprint for rice, a crop fundamental to populations
    worldwide. To continue the discovery of new innovative ways to enhance
    crop production for a growing population, sustained funding is needed
    for similar projects. It is therefore critical the fiscal year 2009
    decision to transfer the Plant Genome Research Program to IOS does not
    adversely impact PGRP. ASA-CSSA-SSSA are concerned that dedicated
    funding for the Plant Genome Research Program may be directed towards
    other programs, such as the Arabadopsis 2010 Program. ASA-CSSA-SSSA
    recommend that the Plant Genome Research Program continue to receive
    the funding intended for it. To ensure adequate funding for all of the
    programs under IOS, we recommend that it receive an overall 10 percent
    increase to $220.86 million.
                Emerging Frontiers (EF)
        The Emerging Frontiers division supports multidisciplinary research
    opportunities and networking activities whereby new initiatives will be
    fostered and subsequently integrated into core programs. The Plant
    Science Cyberinfrastructure Collaborative is a critical program funded
    under EF. Established in fiscal year 2008, this center establishes
    multi-disciplinary teams of computational science experts and plant
    science experts to address evolving critical questions in plant
    science. ASA-CSSA-SSSA offer full support for the President's proposed
    $2.48 million increase (37.4 percent) over fiscal year 2008 funding
    levels for the Plant Science Cyberinfrastructure Collaborative.

    Geological Sciences Directorate
                Atmospheric Sciences (ATM)
        Changes in terrestrial systems will have great impact on
    biogeochemical cycling rates. The Atmospheric Sciences division funds
    critical programs, such as Atmospheric Chemistry, that increase
    understanding of biogeochemical cycles. Soils and plants make up one of
    the largest sinks and sources for several environmentally important
    elements. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support the President's proposed 13.6 percent
    increase in funding for the Atmospheric Science division to $260.58
    million.
                Earth Sciences (EAR)
        The Earth Sciences division supports research emphasizing improved
    understanding of the structure, composition, and evolution of the
    Earth, the life it supports, and the processes that govern the
    formation behavior of the Earth's materials. Fiscal year 2009
    priorities will support theoretical research, including the biological
    geosciences, the hydrologic sciences, and the study of natural hazards.
    Important programs funded within this division are the Critical Zone
    Observatories, which focus on watershed scale studies that advance
    understanding of the integration and coupling of Earth surface
    processes as mediated by the presence and flux of fresh water. ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA support the $750,000 increase to this project.

    Engineering Directorate
                Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport
                        Systems (CBET)
        CBET supports research that enhances the protection of U.S.
    national health, energy, environment, security, and wealth. CBET
    supports programs, such as the Biotechnology, Biochemical, and Biomass
    Engineering, which offer critical solutions to global environmental
    problems associated with climate change. The continual funding of the
    Biotechnology, Biochemical, and Biomass Engineering program is
    essential if we are to develop genetically engineered biofuel
    feedstocks that are more feasible for conversion into biofuels. ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA agree with the President's recommend $42.34 million increase
    for CBET to $173.34 million in fiscal year 2009.

    Directorate for Education and Human Resources
                Division of Graduate Education
        ASA-CSSA-SSSA are dedicated to the enhancement of education, and
    concerned about recent declines in enrollment for these sciences. To
    remain competitive, scientific fields need to find new, innovative ways
    to reach students. The programs offered in the Education and Human
    Resource Directorate accomplish this goal. The Graduate Teaching
    Fellows in K-12 Education offers graduate students interested in
    teaching, an opportunity to get into the classroom and teach utilizing
    new innovative ways of teaching the material. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support the
    $2 million increase to $49 million in the President's budget for this
    program, but request a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 2008
    funding levels to $51.7 million. Graduate students are the next crop of
    scientists, therefore opportunities for study must be increased with
    increasing demands of science. Global problems rely on scientific
    discovery for their amelioration; therefore it is critical that the
    United States continue to be a leader in graduate education. The ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA recommend an increase to the Integrative Graduate Education
    and Research Traineeships (IGERT) from no change from fiscal year 2008
    to an increased level of $30 million (20 percent increase) in fiscal
    year 2009. Education is the key for our future competitiveness;
    therefore it is essential increases in education funding remain on par
    with goals set forth by ACI, so ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend an overall
    increase of 15 percent in fiscal year 2009 over fiscal year 2008 to
    $832.44 million.
                Division of Undergraduate Education
        Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program focuses on the
    education of technicians for the high-technology fields that drive our
    nation's economy. We support continued funding for this program. ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA recommend that this program receive a 20 percent increase
    over fiscal year 2008 to $62 million in fiscal year 2009.

    NSF-Wide Programs
                Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment
        Providing an adequate supply and quantity of water for human use,
    while maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems, is one of the
    greatest challenges facing the country. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support the
    creation of the multi-disciplinary, multi-scale research program,
    Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment with $10 million in
    fiscal year 2009.
                Climate Change Science Program
        The Climate Change Science Program, initiated in 2002, provides the
    Nation and the world with the science-based knowledge to predict,
    change, manage risk, and take advantage of opportunities resulting from
    climate change and climate variability. Biological systems are critical
    to mitigating the impacts and effects of climate change. Additional
    research is needed to examine potential crop systems, plant traits,
    wetland properties, and other ecosystem adaptations to help manage
    climate change. The basic sciences of agro-ecosystems, plant
    improvement, soils, and riparian and wetland ecology need support.
    Therefore while ASA-CSSSA-SSSSA maintain the importance of the
    President's proposed increase to CCSP funding to $220.6 million in
    fiscal year 2009; however additional funding is needed for the
    Biological Sciences. Therefore, ASA-CSSSA-SSSA recommend a 10 percent
    increase in the current funding level from BIO to $16.6 million.
        As you lead the Congress in deliberation on funding levels for the
    National Science Foundation, please consider American Society of
    Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of
    America as supportive resources. We hope you will call on our
    membership and scientific expertise whenever the need arises.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests. For
    additional information or to learn more about the American Society of
    Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of
    America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA), please visit www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org
    or www.soils.org or contact ASA-CSSA-SSSA Director of Science Policy
    Karl Glasener (kglasener@agronomy.org, kglasener@crops.org, or
    kglasener@soils.org).
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
        The National Science Foundation (NSF) Task Force of ASME's
    Technical Communities is pleased to provide comments on the NSF fiscal
    year 2009 budget request, in support of this year's proposed funding
    level of $6.85 billion for the NSF. Founded in 1880 as the American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME is a worldwide engineering
    society of over 127,000 members focused on technical, educational and
    research issues. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
    publishing operations, holds approximately 30 technical conferences and
    200 professional development courses each year, and sets many industry
    and manufacturing standards.

    NSF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request Overview
        With its commitment to broad-based, cross-cutting programs that
    advance the boundaries of science and engineering, the NSF is essential
    in guiding the nation's non-defense-related research and education. As
    recognized by the Administration and Congress, in order for the United
    States to remain competitive in the integrated global marketplace, the
    nation must ``support and promote innovation research in the United
    States through high-risk, high-reward projects that meet fundamental
    scientific and technological challenges.'' To implement this vision,
    the America COMPETES Act, which was signed into law in August 2007,
    includes the NSF as one of three key federal science and engineering
    agencies targeted for budget doubling over 10 years. To this end, ASME
    strongly endorses the NSF's investments in the requisite acquisition of
    new knowledge and in the development of talent whereby transformative
    research is supported and a world-class science and engineering
    workforce is built, inciting innovation, encouraging economic growth,
    addressing critical national needs, and establishing our nation's role
    as a global leader.
        The total fiscal year 2009 NSF budget request is $6.85 billion
    representing an $882 million or 13.6 percent increase over the fiscal
    year 2008 estimate of $6.03 billion. It is worth noting that the
    original fiscal year 2008 request was $6.43 billion, which was reduced
    to $6.03 billion (representing only a 2 percent increase over fiscal
    year 2007) in the final fiscal year 2008 omnibus spending measure.
    Thus, after setbacks in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008, the
    present budget request places NSF back on the path of budget doubling
    set forth in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)
    and the America COMPETES Act.
        Research and Related Activities (RRA) comprises the dominant
    portion of the total NSF request at $5.6 million, representing a 16
    percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 estimate of $4.8 million.
    After flat funding in fiscal year 2008, all of NSF's research
    directorates would receive considerable increases in fiscal year 2009,
    recovering from post-2004 NSF budget cuts to reach all-time highs in
    inflation-adjusted dollars. Funding for the Engineering Directorate
    (ENG) would increase by 19.2 percent over the current year estimate to
    $759 million, of which $127 million is budgeted (through mandate) for
    the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
    Technology Transfer (STTR) programs that ENG administers for all of
    NSF.
        ENG consists of the following disciplinary-area divisions:
    Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET),
    up 32.3 percent to $173 million; Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing
    Innovation (CMMI), up 26.3 percent to $202 million; Electrical,
    Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS), up 13 percent to $94 million;
    Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (IIP), up 15.8 percent to $141
    million; Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI), up 16
    percent to $29 million; and Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), up
    3.4 percent to $120 million.
        A portion of the ENG budget (allocated from the constituent
    divisions) will continue to support research and education efforts
    related to broad, Foundation-wide investments in a number of areas,
    including the Administration's interagency R&D priorities. Under ENG,
    three new priority areas are funded in fiscal year 2009, i.e. Adaptive
    Systems Technology ($3.49 million), Dynamics of Water Processes in the
    Environment ($0.53 million), and Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's
    Law ($4 million). The following continuing areas also receive
    increases: National Nanotechnology Initiative (up 2.2 percent to $140
    million), Cyberinfrastructure (up 7.1 percent to $60 million), and
    Networking and Information Technology R&D (up 45.9 percent to $28
    million--$16.8 million of which is Cyber-enabled Discovery and
    Innovation). Climate Change Science Program ($1 million) funding
    remains level, and the Human and Social Dynamics initiative concluded
    in fiscal year 2008, with funds returning to core programs for
    continued support.

    The ASME NSF Task Force Position
                Affirmation and Endorsement
        The ASME NSF Task Force maintains its high endorsement of NSF's
    crucial role in directing the fundamental research and education that
    keeps America at the leading edge of science, engineering, and
    technology. NSF has an outstanding record of supporting a broad range
    of high-quality research, from ``curiosity-driven'' science to targeted
    initiatives. This achievement has been made possible only through
    strict adherence to the independent peer review process for merit-based
    awards. ASME recognizes the significance and relevance of NSF's
    investment areas that address major national needs for the 21st
    century. The increases proposed under the America COMPETES Act would
    allow NSF to properly sustain and expand these efforts and commitments,
    honing the nation's competitive edge.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget request represents a 13.6 percent
    increase over the fiscal year 2008 estimate. Over three-quarters of the
    total $882 million increase for NSF is in R&D funding, totaling $5.6
    billion, a gain of $772 million or 16 percent over the fiscal year 2008
    estimate. After flat funding in fiscal year 2008, this request would
    bring R&D investment to an all-time high in inflation-adjusted dollars,
    allowing the research directorates to recover from the budget cuts that
    occurred after 2004. In a competitive, multifaceted, and ever-changing
    global setting, adequate investment in basic science and engineering
    research, that involves both established and emerging areas, is
    essential in recognizing and nurturing innovation, in preparing the
    next generation of scientific talent and leaders, and in producing the
    products, processes, and services that improve health, living
    conditions, environmental quality, energy conservation, and national
    security for all Americans.
        Overall, the Task Force also supports and commends activities
    within ENG. NSF's vision of ``advancing discovery, innovation, and
    education beyond the frontiers of current knowledge'' is exemplified
    within ENG. It is important to recognize that it is through such
    fundamental science and engineering research by which next generation
    technologies are frequently engendered. Examples of successes emerging
    from ENG include the fabrication of nanowires for optical applications,
    presenting the potential to miniaturize microphotonic devices and
    transform telecommunications. ENG's SBIR program has developed
    lightweight, flexible, low-cost, and more efficient solar cells--
    plastic reels coated with layers of dye-sensitized titania
    nanoparticles, enabling capture of larger portions of the visible
    spectrum and absorption of more energy. ENG has also funded pioneering
    work on embedding transistors into microcantilevers, where deflections
    resulting from the binding of target molecules in a specific
    environment, create measurable changes in drain current of the
    transistor. This technique allows for a unique sensor system that could
    potentially detect the presence of heart disease from a person's drop
    of blood or detect the presence of chemicals used for explosives.
        NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and ENG is the
    focal point within NSF for this key national research endeavor. ASME
    has strongly supported the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
    since its inception as an NSF investment area in fiscal year 2000.
    Increased funding amounts are requested for research at the fundamental
    level, as well as in environmental, health, and safety aspects. Within
    the total NSF-wide investment for NNI, ENG's contribution will increase
    by $3 million to a total of $140 million.
        Finally, ASME continues to support NSF's vision to ``empower future
    generations in science and engineering.'' In coordination with the
    Department of Education, NSF will continue funding for the Math and
    Science Partnership program (at $51 million), aimed at improving K-12
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and
    teaching. Funding for the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER)
    awards, which support exceptionally promising college and university
    junior faculty who are most likely to become the academic leaders of
    the 21st century, will increase $14.2 million to $181.9 million. The
    fiscal year 2009 request provides $245.9 million for NSF's three
    flagship graduate fellowship and traineeship programs: $124.8 million
    for the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program, $63.8 million for
    the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
    Program, and $57.3 million for the Graduate Teaching Fellowships in K-
    12 Education (GK-12) program. This funding will enable NSF to support
    an estimated 5,450 graduate students. NSF supports the Research
    Experiences for Undergraduates program (REU) at $61.6 million, and the
    Research Experiences for Teachers program (RET) at $9.7 million. NSF
    continues to broaden participation in science and engineering, with
    support totaling $674.4 million. This includes efforts to reach all
    states and regions, e.g. the Experimental Program to Stimulate
    Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which increases to $113.5 million, as
    well as efforts that focus on underrepresented groups.
                Questions and Concerns
        ASME's key questions and concerns arising from the fiscal year 2009
    budget request center on: the need to fund NSF at the appropriate level
    as specified in the America COMPETES Act; a more even funding
    distribution for ENG with respect to other Directorates within NSF; a
    balance between manufacturing and services R&D within ENG; and
    increased funding for non-priority-area core disciplinary research
    within ENG.
        NSF is the only federal agency mandated ``to strengthen the health
    and vitality of U.S. science and engineering and support fundamental
    research and education in all scientific and engineering disciplines.''
    While comprising only 4 percent of the total federal budget for R&D,
    NSF provides 45 percent of the federal support given to academic
    institutions for non-medical basic research. Moreover, while NSF does
    not directly support medical research, its investments do provide the
    technologies in diagnosis, medicine, manufacturing pharmaceuticals, and
    drug delivery that are essential for the medical sciences and related
    industries. Given recent budget cuts at the appropriations stage, the
    ASME NSF Task Force believes that NSF is severely under funded, with
    the immediate and future welfare of our nation at stake.
        Recognizing the urgency in preserving the nation's past success in
    leading-edge discovery and innovation, Congress and the Administration
    enacted the America COMPETES Act in August of 2007, laying out a bold
    path toward revitalizing basic research in the physical sciences and
    engineering. Beginning with the release of the National Academies'
    report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the America COMPETES Act was
    the culmination of a growing consensus among policy makers, engineers,
    and scientists that substantial national efforts related to R&D funding
    in the physical sciences and engineering are needed to preserve the
    nation's competitiveness. The America COMPETES Act was a bipartisan
    bill supporting the doubling of funding over ten years at three key
    federal science agencies (NSF, the Department of Energy's Office of
    Science, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute of
    Standards and Technology). However, despite an increase for NSF and the
    other two agencies, the proposed fiscal year 2008 increase for NSF was
    far from met in the final appropriation. As a result, the ASME NSF task
    force urges Congress to recommit to the ideals of the America COMPETES
    Act, and to fund NSF at the level of the fiscal year 2009 President's
    request, i.e. $6.85 billion, which is commensurate with the intended
    doubling plan.
        ENG is the single largest source of federal funding for university-
    based, fundamental engineering research--providing 40 percent of the
    total federal support in this area. However, ENG (less SBIR/STTR) is
    still only fifth in total funding (at $632 million) of the six
    Directorates within NSF, despite receiving the second largest
    percentage increase of the Directorates at 19.6 percent and matching
    CISE for the second largest total amount increase at $104 million. At
    the same time, ENG supports 23 percent of the total NSF REUs, which
    give U.S. undergraduates research experience to encourage them to
    pursue doctoral studies. ENG also supports over 50 percent of the total
    NSF RETs, which give K-12 teachers and community college faculty
    research experience so that they can extend their experience into
    classrooms. It's important to note that ENG supports these two
    activities at the highest percentages among the Directorates within
    NSF. Our Nation's long-standing global prominence in technological
    innovation may be at risk, if such investments in basic engineering
    research and education are constrained by lack of federal funding in
    engineering.
        Driving new innovation, knowledge-intensive industries comprising
    both services and manufacturing are critical in surviving in the
    worldwide economy. However, since 2002, the nation's decades-long
    comparative advantage in the trade balance of high-technology products
    has shifted from surplus to deficit. Of concern is the transformation
    of the United States from a sustainable ``making products'' economy to
    an unsustainable ``selling products'' economy. As found in a study by
    the World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc. (WTEC) on American
    Manufacturing, globalization of manufacturing and the low level of
    government investment in manufacturing R&D have stripped the United
    States of its position as the recognized leader in manufacturing
    innovation and the commercialization of new technologies. Given the
    need for local manufacturing for national security, wealth generation,
    and quality of life (e.g. health care products compromised by unknown
    sources), the portfolio balance of manufacturing versus services R&D
    within ENG should be examined.
        Encouragingly, the 16 percent growth in RRA allows for the support
    of 1,370 additional research grants NSF-wide. For ENG, 454 additional
    grants are anticipated, along with a funding-rate increase from 16-20
    percent and a $2,000 increase in average annualized award size, for
    unsolicited fundamental research proposals for individual investigators
    and small group activities. Although we are moving in the right
    direction, the total funding for non-priority-area core disciplinary
    research (from which new priority areas and even new disciplines are
    often conceived) within ENG should still be examined. Not counting the
    SBIR/STTR program, the funding for investment priority-areas
    constitutes over 40 percent of the budget request for ENG. The Task
    Force does not advocate for the redistribution of monies from
    investment priority-areas into non-priority core areas, but rather
    significant increases for completely flexible core funds in order to
    develop the creative and novel ideas that feed the comprehensive
    fundamental Science, Engineering, and Technology knowledge base, which
    serves as a foundation for this nation's greatness.

    Closure
        The ASME NSF Task Force urges Congress to support the
    Administration's request at a minimum of $6.85 billion for fiscal year
    2009, and enthusiastically commends the National Science Foundation's
    leadership in projecting the nation's basic research and development
    vision. We applaud Congress for its recent passage of the House budget
    resolution, which includes significant increases that would bring NSF
    into full compliance with the America COMPETES Act. A substantial
    increase in the NSF's budget, by increasing both the number and size of
    its awards, especially in core disciplinary research and education,
    will enable the NSF to better position itself to fulfill its leadership
    responsibility in directing the nation's research and development
    activities. As Congress considers the fiscal year 2009 appropriations
    bills, we hope that the aforementioned resolution is effected, ensuring
    that the necessary basic R&D funding is secured for future U.S.
    competitiveness in science and technology.
        This testimony represents the considered judgment of the NSF Task
    Force of ASME's Technical Communities and is not necessarily a position
    of ASME as a whole.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Bell Incorporated

        On behalf of Bell Incorporated, a global packaging manufacturer,
    located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, I would like to thank the
    Committee for allowing our organization to submit this testimony for
    the record. I am writing to respectfully request that the Hollings
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership program be provided the authorized
    $122 million within the fiscal year 2009 Commerce, Justice, Science and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. This requested level of funding
    for 2009 was provided for in the recently enacted America COMPETES Act.
    As you know, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is
    a program within the Department of Commerce, National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, a program authorized to improve
    competitiveness of America's manufacturing community.
        The MEP is one of the most successful partnerships in the country.
    In addition to public support, a value proposition to improve
    manufacturer's global competitiveness is supported by those companies
    who receive benefit. In South Dakota, the Dakota MEP provides
    assistance to companies in continuous improvement, innovation,
    strategic growth, technology and workforce development--all major needs
    of our companies. Several years ago, our company began our commitment
    to continuous improvement with the assistance of Dakota MEP.
        As a Dakota MEP Director, I would also like to report that the
    average company benefits and impacts realized in the Dakota MEP
    improvement work with manufacturers mirrors the national MEP average at
    $1.4 million per engagement. These benefits have been realized by
    manufacturers who've partnered with Dakota MEP over the past six years.
        Manufacturing continues to diversify and grow the economies of the
    Dakotas. It currently is 10 percent of the gross state product in North
    Dakota and 11 percent in South Dakota. The industry has nearly 1,900
    firms employing 69,000 in the Dakotas exporting over $2 billion.
    Manufacturing brings new wealth to our country, our states and
    communities which, in turn, generate other economic activity and
    opportunities.
        Manufacturing must remain one of our country's economic strengths
    and the MEP is an invaluable program to help the industry better
    compete. Without unwavering strong federal support, the MEP will be
    unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small
    manufacturers' increasing needs. At a time when our economic strength
    and global competitiveness are national priorities, the MEP continues
    to be a wise investment. We respectfully request that you appropriate
    $122 million for the MEP in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

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

        On behalf of the NASULGC Board of Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
    you for your support of science and research programs within the
    National Science Foundation. As members of the scientific academic
    community we encourage you to support an appropriation of at least
    $6.85 billion for the National Science Foundation, including at least
    $675 million for the Directorate of Biological Sciences (BIO). The
    fiscal year 2008 enacted level for NSF is $6.07 billion. The
    administration's fiscal year 2009 request is $6.85 billion for NSF and
    $675 million for BIO. Furthermore, within BIO, we ask that you support
    the President's budget request for the National Ecological Observatory
    Network (NEON) at $26 million in fiscal year 2009.
        While we are pleased that the NSF received an increase (3 percent)
    in fiscal year 2008 over fiscal year 2007 enacted level, we are
    concerned that when adjusted for inflation, the NSF is still receiving
    less funding than in previous years. The BNR supports a 13 percent
    increase for the NSF over the 2008 enacted level to keep it above the
    level of inflation over the past several years and fulfill the promises
    of the America COMPETES Act.
        State universities and land-grant colleges truly welcome and are
    excited by the passage of the America Competes Act and the renewed
    national focus on scientific research and education. Education and
    scientific research have served as the infrastructure and foundation
    for much of Nation's economic and national security. We are also
    extremely pleased with the administration's proposal to double funding
    in the physical sciences at NSF over the next 10 years; however, we
    feel that biological sciences are equally important to America's
    competitiveness.
        Better support for the BIO Division of Environmental Biology is a
    very serious need. NSF's BIO support represents 63 percent of all
    federal funding for basic research in environmental biology. Of the
    non-medical aspects of the biological sciences, BIO is the dominant
    federal supporter of basic research at academic institutions--providing
    66 percent of all support. NSF's contribution to a broad array of the
    biological sciences is critically important--particularly in such areas
    as environmental biology and plant sciences.
        If continued increased investments are not made in environmental
    biology, the younger generation of ecological scientists at our
    universities will be shut out of graduate study, and the contributions
    they should be making to our improved understanding of the environment
    will never happen. These young scientists need to be empowered to help
    us recognize the value of our natural capital, better equipping us to
    protect the America's long term economic and environmental interests.
        Using the University of Alabama as one example out of many BIO-
    supported universities, BIO's Division of Environmental Biology has
    been the major source of funding that has supported research and
    education associated with the Aquatic Biology Program and the Center
    for Freshwater Studies for the past 15 years. The Ecosystem Science,
    Ecological Biology, and the Systematic Biology and Inventories clusters
    have been especially important in supporting individual investigator
    and interdisciplinary, collaborative projects. These funded projects
    have been instrumental in furthering our understanding of the important
    Mobile River System, the largest river system that drains into the Gulf
    of Mexico, east of the Mississippi River. Additionally, these projects
    have also supported over 100 undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral
    students at our institution.
        Many recent graduate students that received support from the NSF
    Division of Environmental Biology are already greatly contributing to
    the field, especially in recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast. The
    knowledge gained from their NSF funded projects is especially valuable
    at a time when both coastal and inland areas along the Gulf coast are
    increasingly being affected by major hurricanes such as Katrina and
    Rita. An understanding of the roles of river floodplains and wetlands
    in mediating major floods and storm surges is critical to effective
    management and restoration of these environments.
        Another program that deserves much support is the NSF-National
    Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), which is envisioned as a
    continental-scale research and infrastructure platform that will
    provide unprecedented advances in ecological forecasting and
    prediction. NEON will transform the way we conduct science by enabling
    the integration of research and education from natural to human
    systems, and from genomes to the biosphere. NEON will address many
    issues critical to the nation's environmental and economic health,
    including land use and climate change, invasive species, and hurricane
    effects. We support the current NSF budget request for funding for NEON
    in the Directorate for Biological Sciences (e.g., Division of
    Biological Infrastructure and Emerging Frontiers).
        Issues of national importance related to the environment, economy,
    agriculture, and human welfare require an understanding of how living
    organisms function and interact with nonliving systems. Advancing
    fundamental scientific discovery in all aspects of life--from molecules
    to whole ecosystems--is supported within NSF, where the ability to
    integrate the range of biological sub-disciplines is unique.

    About NASULGC
        NASULGC is the nation's oldest higher education association.
    Currently the association has over 200 member institutions--including
    the historically black land-grant institutions--located in all fifty
    states. The Association's overriding mission is to support high quality
    public education through efforts that enhance the capacity of member
    institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and
    public service roles.

    About the Board on Natural Resources
        The Board's mission is to promote university-based programs dealing
    with natural resources, fish and wildlife, ecology, minerals and
    energy, and the environment. Most NASULGC institutions are represented
    on the Board. Present membership exceeds 500 scientists and educators,
    who are some of the nation's leading research and educational expertise
    in environmental and natural-resource disciplines.
        This testimony was developed for the BNR by the Chair of the BNR's
    Ecology Section, Dr. Amy Ward, Professor of Biological Sciences,
    University of Alabama.
                                     ______

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

        On behalf of the National Association of State Universities and
    Land-Grant Colleges' Board on Oceans and Atmosphere, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 budgets
    for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
    National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), and the National
    Science Foundation (NSF). All three agencies support research at our
    member institutions that provides critical information to policymakers
    and communities across the country. That is why we strongly recommend
    $4.5 billion for NOAA; $380.6 million in the NASA Earth Science
    Research Account; and $6.85 billion for NSF. Furthermore, within NOAA,
    we recommend $471 million for the Ocean and Atmospheric Research (OAR),
    including $72 million for the National Sea Grant Program; $930.7
    million for the National Weather Service (NWS); $29.5 million for the
    National Ocean Service (NOS) Ocean and Coastal Research Program and the
    NOS Oceans and Human Health Initiative; $96 million for the Integrated
    Ocean Observing Systems (IOOS); and $1.2 billion for the National
    Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS). Within
    NSF, we recommend $848.7 million for the Geosciences Directorate; $98
    million for the Academic Research Fleet; and $244.74 million for the
    Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction account, including
    $38 million for the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), and $31
    million for the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) .

    About NASULGC
        NASULGC is the nation's oldest higher education association.
    Currently the association has over 200 member institutions--including
    the historically black land-grant institutions--located in all fifty
    states. The Association's overriding mission is to support high quality
    public education through efforts that enhance the capacity of member
    institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and
    public service roles.

    About the Board on Oceans and Atmosphere
        The BOA's primary responsibility is to advance research and
    education in the marine and atmospheric sciences through a federal
    relations program. The board currently has approximately 200 regionally
    distributed members, including some of the nation's most eminent
    research scientists, chief executive officers of universities, marine
    and atmospheric scientists, academic deans, and directors of Sea Grant
    programs.

    NOAA
        In order to maintain our country's homeland security, scientific
    leadership, and economic competitive edge, we must have a diverse
    portfolio of federally supported science research and programs.
    Consequently, we are concerned about the significant cuts made to NOAA
    in fiscal year 2006, 2007, and 2008. The science-based work of NOAA
    protects and impacts every American citizen, everyday. NOAA is the
    third largest source of funds for academic marine research in the
    federal government. As a member of the Friends of NOAA Coalition,
    NASULGC strongly recommends $4.5 billion for NOAA in fiscal year 2009.
        BOA recommends a portion of the $4.5 billion be used to support the
    following programs:
        $471 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), including
    $72 million for the National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant). The
    fiscal year 2008 enacted level is $380 million while the President's
    fiscal year 2009 request is $382 million. The research conducted
    through OAR and partnering universities helps us understand climate
    variability, provide better protection for coastal resources,
    contribute to our Nation's commerce, and support our transportation
    systems. OAR supports such important programs as the Ocean Exploration,
    the National Undersea Research Program, U.S. THORPEX medium-range
    forecast improvement research program, transition research for new
    operational forecast models, Climate Operations and Sea Grant.
        For Sea Grant, the fiscal year 2008 enacted is $57.1 million while
    the President's fiscal year 2009 request is $55 million. In constant
    dollars, the program is at its lowest funding levels since its
    inception four decades ago. Sea Grant is the flagship program between
    NOAA and the academic community, supporting the work of 31 colleges
    located in coastal and Great Lakes states and serving as the core of a
    national network of more than 300 institutions involving more than
    3,000 scientists, educators, students, and outreach experts.
        BOA supports the President's request of $930.7 million for the
    National Weather Service (NWS). The fiscal year 2008 enacted is $805.3
    million. NWS provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and
    warnings for the United States, for the protection of life and property
    and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form
    a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by
    other governmental agencies, academia, the private sector, the public,
    and the global community.
        $29.5 million for the extramural portions of both the NOS ocean and
    coastal research program and the Oceans and Human Health Initiative
    (OHHI). The fiscal year 2008 enacted level is $3 million while the
    President's fiscal year 2009 request is $1 million. Within the NOS, BOA
    supports restoration of the drastic cuts in competitive extramural
    research, bringing funding back to the more sustainable and effective
    level provided in fiscal year 2005. In addition, we support the
    appropriation of sufficient funds for full NOAA participation in
    collaborative NOS science programs, particularly OHHI. NOS support for
    extramural research conducted in cooperation with NOAA scientists is
    leading to improved knowledge and forecasts to address complex problems
    such as harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, coastal stressors and ecosystem-
    based management of fisheries.
        $96 million for the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS),
    (including $50 million for Regional Ocean Observing Systems (ROOS), $10
    million for data management and communications, $30 million for IOOS
    enhancements and $6 million for global ocean observing system
    enhancements). Fiscal year 2008 enacted is $26.4 million while the
    President's fiscal year 2009 request is $6.5 million for NOAA IOOS and
    $14.6 million for IOOS Regional Observations (competitive funding).
    IOOS is critical to improving predictions of climate change and
    weather, improving the safety of maritime operations, and reducing
    public health risks. While BOA is supportive of NOAA's inclusion of
    IOOS in its budget request, funding still falls short of last year's
    funding by $5 million, and we prefer placing the vast majority of
    funding for IOOS into competitive funding for the ROOS.
        BOA supports the President's fiscal year 2009 request of $1.2
    billion for NESDIS. BOA strongly supports the building and
    strengthening of NOAA's satellite systems, because these programs are
    extremely important to timely and accurate weather forecasts that
    directly affect public safety, protection of property, and economic
    health and development. In supporting this request, however, BOA is
    concerned that the increase in satellite budget for the Geostationary
    Operational Environmental Satellite not come at the expense of other
    programs within NOAA. Money directed to satellite programs should be in
    addition to funding of other NOAA programs.

    NASA
        Last year, the National Research Council released its report,
    ``Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for
    the Next Decade and Beyond.'' The report found that between 2000 and
    2006, funding for Earth Sciences (ES) has fallen from $2 billion to
    $1.5 billion annually. ES research is absolutely critical to
    understanding global climate change, such as the decline of Earth's ice
    sheets or the health of the global oceans. BOA generally supports the
    findings of this report, and we urge the committee to increase the ES
    funding levels consistent with the report's recommendations so that
    future missions as well as research and analysis (R&A) are supported.
    It is also critical to continually evaluate the scientific priorities
    of future missions so that mission priorities can be adjusted to
    provide the most benefit and imminent gaps in capabilities and
    systematic observations can be addressed. For this reason, BOA
    recommends additional funding to support a gap analysis of critical
    systematic and emerging science priorities and to adjust mission
    strategies as appropriate, including the development of new mission
    plans where appropriate.
        ES activities currently fall within the agency's Science Mission
    Directorate. We continue to see ES activities, such as R&A in the past
    five years, being cut because of other agency priorities. ES
    investments in university-based research have resulted in valuable
    advances in weather forecasting, improved climate projections, and
    understanding of Earth ecosystems. Furthermore, the R&A program within
    ES is the primary mechanism for funding to the academic community.
    Through its support for young scientists and graduate students, the R&A
    program supports innovation in ES and technology using NASA's satellite
    missions. New sensor concepts, new data processing algorithms, and new
    approaches to global-scale ES are the legacy of the research funded by
    the R&A program. In view of the rapid changes taking place in global
    climate, weather, ice cover, carbon cycle science and ecosystems, it is
    essential that NASA maintain a strong level of R&A funding to derive
    maximum benefit from today's missions as well as to support the
    innovation needed to develop the missions of tomorrow. To ensure the
    viability and effectiveness of our ES R&A programs, BOA supports
    restoring Earth Sciences funding to fiscal year 2000 levels, an
    increase of approximately 33 percent.

    NSF
        BOA welcomes the renewed national focus on scientific research and
    education as illustrated by the passage of the American COMPETES Act.
    BOA supports the President's NSF fiscal year 2009 budget request of
    $6.85 billion. The fiscal year 2008 enacted is $6.06 billion.
        BOA recommends that a portion of that $6.85 billion be used to
    support the following program:
        BOA supports the President's request of $848.7 million for the
    Geosciences Directorate. No specific numbers for the Geosciences
    Directorate were enacted for fiscal year 2008. As the principal source
    of federal funding for university-based fundamental research in the
    geosciences, GEO addresses the Nation's need to understand, predict,
    and respond to environmental events and changes. GEO-supported research
    also advances our ability to predict natural phenomena of economic and
    human significance, such as climate changes, weather, earthquakes,
    marine ecosystem change, and disruptive events in the solar-terrestrial
    environment.
        $244.74 million for the Major Research Equipment & Facilities
    Construction Account, (MREFCA) and within MREFCA, $31 million for the
    Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) and $38 million for the Integrated
    Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). The fiscal year 2008 enacted for MREFCA
    is $220.74 million, while the President's fiscal year 2009 request is
    $147.51 million. No specific fiscal year 2008 numbers were enacted for
    OOI or IODP. The President's fiscal year 2009 request is $10.50 million
    for OOI and $47.74 million for IODP.
        The OOI will provide the oceanographic research and education
    communities with continuous, interactive access to the ocean. Through a
    global-scale array, a regional-scaled cabled network, and a network of
    coastal observatories, scientists will be able to study real-time data
    transmission and visual images from the seafloor multiple, interrelated
    processes over variable timescales. OOI will also provide the ideal
    platform for training a new generation of oceanographers skilled in the
    use and manipulation of large, oceanographic, time-series datasets, a
    necessity given the planned establishment of the National Integrated
    Ocean Observing System (IOOS).
        The IODP is an international partnership of scientists, research
    institutions, and agencies using ocean drilling to explore the
    evolution and structure of Earth as recorded in the ocean basins. As
    part of its co-leadership of IODP with Japan, NSF will provide a light
    drillship and science support services for high-resolution studies of
    environmental and climate change, observatory and biosphere objectives.
    The contracting, conversion, outfitting and acceptance trials of a new
    Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel will enable NSF to move forward with
    its portion of IODP.
        $98 million for the Academic Research Fleet (ARF). Finally, to
    optimize the potential of these ocean research infrastructures,
    operating and maintenance funding will be required. No specific funding
    was enacted for ARF in fiscal year 2008. The administration's fiscal
    year 2009 request is $83.96 million.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy

                                    SUMMARY

       On behalf of the California State Coastal Conservancy, I want to
    thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present our priorities
    for fiscal year 2009. The Conservancy respectfully requests the
    following funding levels needed from the listed NOAA accounts for the
    implementation of the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP). Our
    requests during fiscal year 2009 are as follows: $1,000,000 for the
    Office of Coast Survey; $300,000 for the NOAA National Marine Fisheries
    Service Southwest Fisheries Service Center and $3,500,000 for the NOAA
    Coastal Services Center. The Conservancy is also seeking a $1 million
    appropriation for the NASA Ames Research Center located in the Silicon
    Valley section of California in support of our efforts with the South
    San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration. In totaling our requests the
    Conservancy is asking for $5.8 million in funding during fiscal year
    2009 from accounts under the subcommittees jurisdiction.

                             CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND

        The California State Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a
    state agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect,
    restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the
    shore.
        To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects
    along the 1,100 mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay.
    Through such projects, the Conservancy: protects and improves coastal
    wetlands, streams, and watersheds; works with local communities to
    revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving
    complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports
    coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities.
        Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has:
    helped build more than 300 access ways and trails, assisted in the
    completion of over 100 urban waterfront projects, joined in partnership
    endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and other nonprofit
    groups and completed projects in every coastal county and all nine San
    Francisco Bay Area counties.

                      CALIFORNIA SEAFLOOR MAPPING PROGRAM

        The California State Coastal Conservancy, in conjunction with
    numerous state and federal partners, is ambitiously pursuing the
    mapping of the entirety of the seafloor directly off the coast of the
    state of California. This project will produce detailed bathymetric
    maps of some of the most productive ocean waters in the United States
    and the world and as such is critical for a multitude of reasons.
        A large number of ocean management decisions can be made more
    effectively with accurate statewide mapping of seafloor substrate,
    marine habitat types, and bathymetry (underwater topography) of
    California's coastal and nearshore waters. This information will inform
    the designation of new marine reserve areas as well as the monitoring
    of all reserve areas along the California Coast. High resolution sea
    floor maps will distinguish underwater habitats and highlight faults,
    chasms, fissures, crevices and pinnacles and will help identify and
    understand known and unknown fault dynamics along the seismically
    active California Coast. This information will then be utilized by
    scientists and resource managers to identify potential biological hot
    spots to aid their understanding of the highly productive and diverse
    ecosystem along the California Coast. Further, information concerning
    the size and extent of activity associated with known and unknown
    underwater fault lines will allow our communities to better prepare for
    the possibility of cataclysmic seismic activity of the California
    Coast.
        In addition, the project will provide extensive navigational
    benefits as it will identify hidden reefs, sunken obstacles and other
    navigation hazards in California's near and offshore waters. This
    information is essential for the safety of maritime commerce vessels,
    and subsequently the economies of California and the nation. These maps
    will provide greater knowledge and understanding of navigational
    channels and hazards surrounding the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach,
    and Oakland, the nations 1st, 2nd and 4th busiest port facilities
    respectively, which collectively are responsible for 50 percent of the
    nation's total container cargo volume.
        Examples of some additional applications that would benefit from
    marine mapping and data include: understanding sediment transport and
    sand delivery, identifying dredging and dumping sites, regulation of
    offshore coastal development, and illuminating the dynamics of
    fisheries and other marine species. Detailed bathymetric maps are also
    critical in the development of an ocean circulation model that will
    allow us to better predict ocean response to natural and human-induced
    changes.
        We are committed to the success and completion of the project and
    have secured $12.5 million from the State of California Ocean
    Protection Council (OPC) for the advancement of the project to date.
    The OPC also intends to appropriate an additional $7.5 million in
    fiscal year 2009 if funds become available. We are also working with
    the Packard Foundation to determine the potential of financial support.
        In support of the project the California Coastal Conservancy is
    seeking $1,000,000 from the Office of Coast Survey (OCS) in the
    National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. OCS has been
    surveying the coastal waters of the United States and producing
    navigational charts for our nation's ports and waterways for nearly two
    centuries. Federal funds would be used to augment state funds to
    collect remaining data in California's state waters. OCS committed
    $2,000,000 to the program in fiscal year 2008.
        In addition, we are seeking $300,000 in funding from the National
    Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Habitat
    differences of biological and geological significance cannot always be
    discerned from remotely sensed data. Some physical (grab samples) or
    visual (video) sampling is required to meet International Hydrographic
    Organization standards. Working in cooperation with the USGS and the CA
    Department of Fish and Game, federal funds and staff time for NMFS are
    needed to assure biological accuracy of the mapping effort. An
    additional $1.5 million will be requested from the U.S. Geological
    Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Program for scientific data
    collection (hydrographic surveys of the seafloor, video ground-truthing
    of remotely collected data to verify habitats and geologic structure,
    and seismic profiling to determine geologic stability) and for final
    map production. Although most of the hydrographic survey data will be
    collected by private industry, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program
    of the USGS is uniquely qualified to ground truth the accuracy of the
    data, and in coordination with the CA Geological Survey, create
    finished map products.
        We are also seeking $3,500,000 in funding for the establishment of
    a NOAA West Coast Coastal Services Center. This is essential as the
    CSMP will produce vast amounts of data and maps. An established Coastal
    Service Center in this region will allow NOAA to work with the state to
    ensure managers have access to essential data and to develop decision-
    making tools for resource managers. These tools will help local and
    state managers make connections between coastal land use and marine
    resources and better understand climate change and sea level rise
    impacts on our coastal and ocean resources. The establishment of the
    West Coast Services Center will also enhance the federal support for
    the West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health such as the
    development of social economic baselines for coastal communities and
    West Coast-wide mapping products, tools, and technical training through
    the Digital Coast effort.
        Finally, the subcommittee should know that the CSMP enjoys broad
    support from a multitude of local, state, and federal agencies. These
    entities include: NOAA, USGS, Mineral Management Service, U.S. Coast
    Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA
    Department of Fish and Game, CA State Lands, CA Coastal Commission, and
    CA State Water Resources Control Board. The CSMP is also supported by
    the federal Integrated Ocean Observing Program and the two regional
    associations within California, the Central and Northern Coastal Ocean
    Observing System (CeNCOOS) and the Southern CA Coastal Ocean Observing
    Program (SCCOOS). Seafloor mapping is included as a major priority in
    the OPC's strategic plan and in the West Coast Governor's Agreement on
    Ocean Health. Furthermore, the Interagency Working Group on Ocean and
    Coastal Mapping, established by the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science
    and Technology, is currently drafting a National Ocean and Coastal
    Mapping Strategic Action Plan that will highlight the state-federal
    partnerships developed for CSMP as a model for the country.

      SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION--NASA AMES RESEARCH
                                     CENTER

        The California State Coastal Conservancy in conjunction with the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA, the
    Santa Clara Valley Water District and Alameda County Flood Control and
    Water Conservation District is pursuing the restoration of over 15,100
    acres of salt ponds formerly owned by the Cargill corporation. The
    project, known as the South San Francisco Salt Ponds Restoration
    Project, is the largest wetlands restoration initiative on the west
    coast of the United States and the 2nd largest restoration project in
    the nation, trailing only the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
    Program in size and scope.
        The project will provide dramatic benefits to the region, state and
    nation by transforming 15,100 acres of salt ponds formerly owned by the
    Cargill Corporation into a vibrant wetlands area that will provide
    extensive habitat for federally endangered birds, fish and wildlife. In
    addition, the project will improve wildlife oriented recreational
    opportunities including fishing, hunting, environmental education and
    bird-watching.
        In addition, the project will provide increased public access to
    areas of the South San Francisco Bay that were previously unreachable
    through the creation of new bay trails and other associated
    undertakings. The construction of one particular segment of bay trail
    runs adjacent to the NASA Ames Research facility. The facility,
    currently well removed from public access, will need upgraded security
    features to safeguard its personnel and contents in advance of
    increased public access to the area. As such, we are seeking a $1
    million in increased funding for the facility for the construction of
    this fence. Of this amount $661,800 will be for 13,236 linear feet of
    fencing, $50,000 for 10 double swing gates valued at $5,000 per gate
    and $60,000 is required for the installation of closed circuit
    monitoring technologies.
        This request is supported by the center and all our project
    partners. Specifically, the South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Project
    is supported by a great number of respected organizations including:
    the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, the City of San Jose, The Bay
    Institute, Save the Bay, the Bay Trail Program, the National Audubon
    Society, and many other local governments, environmental groups,
    community groups, businesses, and recreation organizations.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Population Association of America/Association
                             of Population Centers

    Introduction
        Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member 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). PAA and
    APC request that you support the administration's budget for the Census
    Bureau at $2.6 billion and for NSF at $6.8 billion.

    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. Both the
    Census Bureau and National Science Foundation (NSF), which are under
    your subcommittee's jurisdiction, are key to the success of our field.

    The Census Bureau
        The Census Bureau is the most comprehensive source of demographic
    and economic data on every facet of our nation's population and
    communities. PAA and APC members rely on accessible data produced by
    the Census Bureau to conduct their research. Thus, we support the
    Administration's request of $2.6 billion for the Census Bureau in
    fiscal year 2009 and hope the Subcommittee will as well. This funding
    is necessary to support the significant ramp-up activities in the final
    preparation year for the 2010 decennial census and to support the
    agency's ongoing survey operations, too.
        We recognize the fiscal year 2009 request is double the fiscal year
    2008 appropriation of $1.3 billion. However, as you know, the Census
    Bureau's budget is cyclical and must increase dramatically in the years
    immediately preceding the decennial census to pay for necessary
    preparations. In fiscal year 2009, these activities include:
      --Opening and staffing 150 ``early'' local census offices;
      --Canvassing all neighborhoods and rural areas to verify addresses
            (on the Master Address File) and geographic locations (in the
            TIGER system);
      --Finalizing data capture, data processing, and telecommunications
            systems;
      --Printing hundreds of millions of census questionnaires and other
            forms; and
      --Conducting promotional activities, including the Regional
            Partnership Program, to assure the greatest possible level of
            participation in 2010.
        The groundwork done in the final year before the census will, to a
    large extent, determine the success of the 2010 Census. The Census
    Bureau must receive, at a minimum, the President's requested funding
    level, to ensure vital preparations are thorough and timely.
        Fiscal year 2009 is also a pivotal year for the American Community
    Survey (ACS), which has replaced the traditional census long form. In
    2010, the ACS will provide the first demographic, economic, and housing
    characteristics data for areas as small as census tracts and block
    groups, based on five years worth of data collection for households
    (2005-2009). To assure the data collected in the last year are as
    accurate as in previous years, the Census Bureau needs sufficient
    funding to continue sampling three million households that receive the
    ACS annually.
        The Administration's request also will enable the agency to
    continue its other ongoing surveys, which measure changes in individual
    and household demographic and economic conditions. For example, in
    fiscal year 2009, the Census Bureau will tabulate and publish data from
    the 2007 Economic Census, launch an initiative to improve the
    collection of economic statistics on the growing service sector, and
    continue the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Continuation
    of these activities is particularly important in the current difficult
    economic climate, as these data provide a basis for key economic
    indicators and help Congress assess the prudence of fiscal policy
    proposals.

    National Science Foundation (NSF)
        PAA and APC, as members of the Coalition for National Science
    Funding, support the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for
    NSF of $6.8 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 portfolio of population research
    projects.
        The mission of NSF is to promote the progress of science; to
    advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the
    national defense. The demography of our population directly impacts the
    health, prosperity, welfare, and security of our nation. NSF's 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 demographic research. NSF is the funding source for
    approximately 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.
        The Census Bureau and the National Science Foundation support,
    indirectly and directly, the collection and availability of rich data
    sources important to PAA/APC members. Our demographers, economists,
    sociologists, and statisticians rely on federally supported data to
    conduct sound 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 Consortium of Social Science Associations
                                    (COSSA)

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Consortium
    represents over 110 professional associations, scientific societies,
    universities and research institutes concerned with the promotion of
    and funding for research in the social, behavioral and economic
    sciences. COSSA functions as a bridge between the research world and
    the Washington community. A list of COSSA's membership is attached.
        Like you, COSSA was disappointed in some of the final numbers in
    the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. We had hoped the
    Administration and the Congress could agree on an overall number that
    would have allowed you to maintain some of the early promising
    increases for the National Science Foundation and other agencies. We
    hope the fiscal year 2009 process will work more smoothly.
        We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed fiscal
    year 2009 budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), for which
    we recommend at least $6.85 billion; the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
    for which we support the proposed budget of $86.9 million; the Census
    Bureau, for which we recommend whatever funds, both regular and
    ``emergency'' appropriations, that may be necessary to ensure a fair
    and accurate Census and protect the Bureau's other data collection
    activities; the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), for which we seek
    $50 million in program funds, and Bureau of Justice Statistics (NIJ),
    for which we urge $50 million in program funds. COSSA is well aware
    that each year you confront difficult choices among competing agencies
    under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. We hope that you will give these
    agencies' needs generous consideration.

                       NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)

        COSSA strongly recommends that NSF receive at least the President's
    request of $6.85 billion in fiscal year 2008. We recognize that this is
    below the authorized level of $7.33 billion, that would double NSF's
    budget in seven years, but we are realistic. We also strongly support
    the Research and Related Activities request of $5.594 billion.
        We realize the NSF fiscal year 2009 budget proposal is driven by
    the Administration's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). And we
    know that the ACI grew out of the National Academies' Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm (RAGS) report. Both of these have asserted that
    reinvigorating the physical sciences and engineering are a national
    priority. Yet, there are admonitions from the RAGS report, from the
    language in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations report, for which we
    are grateful to this Subcommittee, and from the COMPETES Act, that the
    social, behavioral and economic (SBE) sciences should not be left
    behind. COSSA believes the NSF's fiscal year 2008 allocation and the
    fiscal year 2009 request suggest that is what is happening. There is no
    apparent increase in the fiscal year 2008 current plan for the SBE
    directorate and its fiscal year 2009 proposed increase of $18 million
    pales in comparison to the $235 million boost for the physical and
    mathematical sciences. NSF is extremely important for federal support
    for basic research in the SBE sciences. For some fields in these
    sciences, NSF is the only source of federal support for basic research
    and infrastructure development.
        Now is also a time when advances in methodologies, computing power,
    and interdisciplinary cooperation are helping SBE scientists produce
    significant results. We need sustained support for the new modes of
    research, such as collaborations, economic and political laboratories,
    merged databases, functional MRIs, and virtual centers that have
    transformed SBE research.
        The social and behavioral research portfolio is enormous and
    supports science of tremendous intellectual excitement and substantial
    societal importance. Let me list a number of areas, far from a
    comprehensive list, where social and behavioral research plays a
    significant role in addressing America's and the world's problems.
      --The Brain/Behavioral Interface--neuroeconomics, law and
            neuroscience, biomarkers
      --Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI)--
        --Information Technology--privacy, human-machine interfacing
        --Nanotechnology--regulatory and safety considerations
      --Climate Change
        --Human Dimensions, International Politics, Land Use, Coupled
                Natural and Human Systems
      --Energy
        --Behavior Changes for Conservation
        --Biofuel Impact on Rural America
      --Developing Human Capital
        --Language and Other Learning, Skill Formation, Changing Workforce.
      --Social Networks--terrorism, teen sexual behavior
      --Decision Making--under uncertainty, risk taking and risk aversion
      --Organizational Change--virtual organizations, flat pyramids,
            telecommuting
      --Public Health--obesity, health disparities, lifestyle choices
      --A Fair Society--broadening participation and enhancing diversity
      --A Safe Society--crime and criminal justice
      --Changing Demographics
        --International Aspects--global aging, migration, birth and death
                Rates
        --U.S.--internal shifts, immigration
        --Changing Family Structure
      --Global Issues--Conflict and Cooperation, Terrorism, Differential
            Economic Growth, Compatibility of Economic and Political
            Freedom
        As you can recognize, many of these are issues the Congress deals
    with constantly. Social and behavioral research provides you with
    answers to many of these vexing problems. Yet, at budget time, we are
    relatively poor orphans.
        Admittedly, not all of these issues are related to NSF's agenda.
    However, basic research on individual, group, and societal behavior is
    the underpinning for much of the knowledge and insight that policy
    makers bring to coping with these issues. Of course, we understand, as
    political science studies have shown, that research results are not the
    only consideration used by policy makers.
        Some specific SBE-related programs continue, such as the initiative
    on the Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP). These studies
    examine how national research and development systems work, how to
    measure and nurture innovation, and how to direct the nation's
    investments. Two major competitions have been solicited, generating
    high demand, and more will follow. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2008
    lack of a spending increase affected the ability of this program to
    fund some excellent proposals.
        The Foundation-wide, SBE-managed, priority called Human and Social
    Dynamics (HSD) has come to an end. HSD supported projects that
    investigated the dynamics of human action and development, as well as
    knowledge about organizational, cultural, and societal adaptation and
    change. It utilized multidisciplinary research teams and comprehensive,
    interdisciplinary approaches across the sciences. Two major HSD foci
    will continue as part of the core programs within SBE: environmental
    research and the development of international, integrated, microdata
    sets to enhance analysis of both national and global attitudes and
    trends.
        SBE maintains its support for major long-term data bases such as
    the Panel Study on Income Dynamics, the General Social Survey, and the
    American National Election Studies. These three extraordinary sets of
    time-series data continue to paint a portrait of American's economic,
    social, and political attitudes and behavior over five decades, while
    updating their methodology and expanding their scope.
        With regard to the Education and Human Resources directorate (EHR),
    COSSA believes that broadening participation in science, across all the
    sciences, is a worthy endeavor. We support NSF's programs to ensure
    that all students get a chance to become scientists; including SBE
    scientists. COSSA recently organized and led a full-day retreat on
    Enhancing Diversity in the Sciences with the participation of
    representatives from professional associations, scientific societies,
    NSF, and NIH. Information about the retreat can be found at
    www.cossa.org.
        We strongly support the 32 percent proposed budget increase for
    NSF's Graduate Education programs to provide more fellowships. These
    have been extremely important for budding scientists across all the
    disciplines. We also believe in programs that will enhance the quality
    of teaching in our K-12 system, not only for math and science, but for
    all subjects. It is clear from NAEP and other tests that American
    students need help across-the-board.
        We also strongly support funding for EHR research that evaluates
    the effectiveness of these programs and enhances their ability to get
    the job done right. We also believe that STEM education cannot be done
    in isolation from social, economic, and cultural factors that influence
    our education system and its students. The SBE sciences are in the
    forefront of providing research and evidence for improving how our
    children learn and survive in the modern, complex societies in which we
    live. NSF's Science of Leaning Centers program is an important part of
    this and COSSA strongly supports the continued funding of these Centers
    found in the Integrated Activities account.

             THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU AND BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

        COSSA is a member of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee and as we
    move toward that redesigned short-form Census, the large increase
    proposed for the Bureau's fiscal year 2009 budget becomes imperative if
    we are to get the count right. We are aware that there are difficulties
    surrounding the preparations for 2010, particularly with regard to the
    use of handheld devices to verify addresses and to conduct the
    nonresponse follow up. We hope that Congress and the Bureau can
    cooperate to ensure that these problems are straightened out.
        Nonetheless, the Census is constitutionally mandated and has an
    important impact on reapportionment, redistricting, and the
    distribution of federal and state funds. So we must make every effort
    and spend whatever is necessary to make sure we get a fair and accurate
    count.
        In addition, the other regular activities at the Census Bureau
    should not suffer as a result of the difficulties with the preparations
    for 2010. The American Community Survey (ACS) has allowed the decennial
    to become a short-form census and ACS' annual data collections also
    provide timelier information for use by state and local governments and
    businesses. The other Bureau activities are also important to
    maintaining our economic statistical databases that play an important
    role in employment policy, housing policy, and economic policy and
    their funding should be sufficient.
        COSSA also supports the increase proposed for the fiscal year 2009
    Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) that continues the development of
    measures of investment in R&D and other knowledge-based activities in
    order to incorporate them into the nation's GDP. BEA also maintains the
    nation's current income accounts, an important tool for economic policy
    making.

         NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (NIJ) AND THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE
                                STATISTICS (BJS)

        At the House CJS Subcommittee hearing with the Office of Justice
    Programs there were many references to the studies and data collections
    of NIJ and BJS. The problem has been that these references do not
    necessarily translate into increased budget support. In recent years,
    these agencies have seen their budgets stagnate and in some years go
    down. We appreciate this Subcommittee's support of the fiscal year 2008
    increase for BJS and the strong report language regarding the
    importance of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). We ask
    for enhanced resources for these agencies in fiscal year 2009, $50
    million in program funds for each agency. The cost of crime to victims
    and to society is far out of proportion to the budget for research
    studies and the collection and analysis of data that are essential to
    understanding how to effect change with regard to crime and criminal
    justice.
        Recently, the National Academies' Committee on National Statistics
    has been reviewing BJS' programs. In early January they released their
    report Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime
    Victimization Survey. In many years, NCVS takes up to 60 percent of the
    BJS budget.
        The Committee found that ``as currently configured and funded, the
    NCVS is not achieving and cannot achieve BJS' legislatively mandated
    goal to `collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and
    comparable national social indication of the prevalence, incidence,
    rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime.' '' They
    recommend that BJS needs additional funds to ``generate accurate
    measures of victimization, which are as important to understanding
    crime in the United States as the UCR measure of crimes reported to the
    police.'' Additional resources will also permit NCVS to provide sub-
    national data, a sticking point for many practitioners regarding the
    NCVS.
        Recent increases in crime are not uniform across America. Many
    large cities continue to show declines, while medium-size cities and
    rural areas are experiencing difficulties. There are many possible
    explanations and the sorting out process continues. But it is clear
    that strategies that worked in some places, ``hot spots,'' community
    policing, crime mapping, are not working in others. The re-entry of
    former prison inmates into the general population creates more
    concerns. COSSA sponsored a session on April 4 on Violent Crime: What's
    Happening and Why in which distinguished criminologists and a former
    judge discussed these problems. NIJ needs more resources to support
    further explorations of this differentiation that now marks criminal
    activity.
        The National Academies' has also begun a study of NIJ's research
    activities. COSSA testified to that panel in December of last year. The
    NIJ social science portfolio has been limited in recent years, as
    budgets have decreased and the fascination with technological fixes
    continues. COSSA has nothing against technology, but as has been proven
    in so many areas, human behavior and social conditions often thwart
    technology-driven solutions and thus the focus, we believe has to
    shift.
        In July of each year, NIJ convenes a large R&D conference that
    examines major issues facing the criminal justice community. It is a
    special opportunity to bring together scientists, practitioners, and
    policy makers to interact and cooperate on setting research agendas.
        Again, I understand that this is expected to be another difficult
    year for the appropriations' process. COSSA hopes that when you
    consider the fiscal year 2009 funding for the agencies I discussed, you
    will treat them as generously as you can.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

                   CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS

    Governing Members
    American Association for Public Opinion Research
    American Economic Association
    American Educational Research Association
    American Historical Association
    American Political Science Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Society of Criminology
    American Sociological Association
    American Statistical Association
    Association of American Geographers
    Association of American Law Schools
    Law and Society Association
    Linguistic Society of America
    Midwest Political Science Association
    National Communication Association
    Rural Sociological Society
    Society for Research in Child Development
    Membership Organizations
    American Agricultural Economics Association
    American Association for Agricultural Education
    Association for Asian Studies
    Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
    Association of Research Libraries
    Council on Social Work Education
    Eastern Sociological Society
    International Communication Association
    Justice Research and Statistics Association
    Midwest Sociological Society
    National Association of Social Workers
    National Council on Family Relations
    North American Regional Science Council
    North Central Sociological Association
    Population Association of America
    Social Science History Association
    Society for Behavioral Medicine
    Society for Research on Adolescence
    Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
    Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
    Sociologists for Women in Society
    Southern Political Science Association
    Southern Sociological Society
    Southwestern Social Science Association
    Colleges and Universities
    Arizona State University
    Brown University
    University of California, Berkeley
    University of California, Davis
    University of California, Irvine
    University of California, Los Angeles
    University of California, San Diego
    University of California, Santa Barbara
    Carnegie-Mellon University
    University of Chicago
    Clark University
    Columbia University
    Cornell University
    Duke University
    George Mason University
    George Washington University
    University of Georgia
    Harvard University
    Howard University
    University of Illinois
    Indiana University
    University of Iowa
    Iowa State University
    Johns Hopkins University
    John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY
    Kansas State University
    University of Kentucky
    University of Maryland
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse
    University of Michigan
    Michigan State University
    University of Minnesota
    Mississippi State University
    New York University
    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
    North Carolina State University
    Northwestern University
    Ohio State University
    University of Oklahoma
    University of Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania State University
    Princeton University
    Purdue University
    Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
    University of South Carolina
    Stanford University
    University of Tennessee
    State University of New York, Stony Brook
    University of Texas, Austin
    Texas A & M University
    Tulane University
    Vanderbilt University
    University of Virginia
    University of Washington
    Washington University in St. Louis
    West Virginia University
    University of Wisconsin, Madison
    University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
    Yale University
    Centers and Institutes
    American Academy of Political and Social Sciences
    American Council of Learned Societies
    American Institutes for Research
    Brookings Institution
    Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
    Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research
    Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
    Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research
    Institute for Women's Policy Research
    National Bureau of Economic Research
    National Opinion Research Center
    Population Reference Bureau
    Social Science Research Council
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Crary Industries Inc.

        On behalf of Crary Industries Inc., manufacturer of agricultural
    and outdoor equipment, located in West Fargo, North Dakota, I would
    like to thank the Committee for allowing our organization to submit
    this testimony for the record. I am writing to respectfully request
    that the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program be
    provided the authorized $122 million within the fiscal year 2009
    Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
    This requested level of funding for 2009 was provided for in the
    recently enacted America COMPETES Act. As you know, the Hollings
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a program within the
    Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
    a program authorized to improve competitiveness of America's
    manufacturing community.
        The MEP is one of the most successful partnerships in the country.
    In addition to public support, a value proposition to improve
    manufacturer's global competitiveness is supported by those companies
    who receive benefit. In North Dakota, the Dakota MEP provides
    assistance to companies in continuous improvement, innovation,
    strategic growth, technology and workforce development--all major needs
    of our companies. We have worked on a variety of improvement projects
    with the assistance of Dakota MEP.
        As a Dakota MEP Director, I would also like to report that the
    average company benefits and impacts realized in the Dakota MEP
    improvement work with manufacturers mirrors the national MEP average at
    $1.4 million per engagement. These benefits have been realized by
    manufacturers who've partnered with Dakota MEP over the past six years.
        Manufacturing continues to diversify and grow the economies of the
    Dakotas. It currently is 10 percent of the gross state product in North
    Dakota and 11 percent in South Dakota. The industry has nearly 1,900
    firms employing 69,000 in the Dakotas exporting over $2 billion.
    Manufacturing brings new wealth to our country, our states and
    communities which, in turn, generate other economic activity and
    opportunities.
        Manufacturing must remain one of our country's economic strengths
    and the MEP is an invaluable program to help the industry better
    compete. Without unwavering strong federal support, the MEP will be
    unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small
    manufacturers' increasing needs. At a time when our economic strength
    and global competitiveness are national priorities, the MEP continues
    to be a wise investment. We respectfully request that you appropriate
    $122 million for the MEP in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Society for Neuroscience

    Introduction
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Eve Marder,
    Ph.D., President of the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) and the Victor
    and Gwendolyn Beinfield Professor of Neuroscience at Brandeis
    University. It is my honor to submit this testimony on behalf of SfN in
    support of the National Science Foundation.
        My research focuses on understanding how circuit function arises
    from the intrinsic properties of individual neurons and their synaptic
    connections. Of particular interest is the extent to which similar
    circuit outputs can be generated by multiple mechanisms, both in
    different individual animals, or in the same animal over its lifetime.
    To address this, my lab studies the central pattern generating circuits
    in the crustacean stomatogastric nervous system, such as those found in
    crabs and lobsters. Central pattern generators are groups of neurons
    found in vertebrate and invertebrate nervous systems responsible for
    the generation of specific rhythmic behaviors such as walking,
    swimming, and breathing. I am the recipient of federal support from the
    National Institutes of Health, and from the National Science Foundation
    for research and the training of the next generation of scientists.
    Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
        The Administration requests a budget of $6.85 billion for NSF in
    fiscal year 2009, a 13 percent increase from fiscal year 2008. The
    administration's request for the Research and Related Activities (R&RA)
    account, where all NSF grant funding resides, is $5.59 billion, an
    increase of 16 percent from fiscal year 2008. The scientific community
    applauds this strong support for the agency--it is a crucial step in
    keeping the United States competitive in science and technology.
        SfN is advocating a budget of $7.33 billion for NSF in fiscal year
    2009, the amount authorized by the House in the America COMPETES Act.
    This represents a 20.8 percent increase for NSF. While this increase
    seems large, we ask that the Subcommittee consider the following:
      --NSF accounts for nearly 25 percent of federal support of basic
            research at U.S. academic institutions.
      --This is effectively a two-year increase. NSF received an increase
            of just 1.3 percent for fiscal year 2008 after Congress passed
            much larger amounts in their spending bills.
      --In some cases, directorates not covered under the American
            Competitiveness Imitative actually saw funding decreases in the
            last fiscal year, including the Biological Sciences Directorate
            (-2.9 percent).
        SfN supports such dramatic budgetary action because it represents a
    necessary step in the advancement of physics, computer science,
    mathematics, chemistry, engineering, as well as biology. These fields,
    and scientists trained in them, are crucial for us to understand the
    brain and the way it controls behavior. Through NSF grants and
    cooperative agreements with colleges, universities, K-12 school
    systems, and other research organizations throughout the United States,
    neuroscientists can continue to conduct the basic research that
    advances scientific knowledge and leads to tomorrow's treatments and
    cures. Additionally, SfN recognizes the leadership role that NSF plays
    in driving innovation in science education.

    Basic Research--Fundamental Science
        Continued investment in basic research at NSF is essential to
    laying the groundwork for discoveries that will inspire scientific
    pursuit and technological innovation for future generations. As
    reflected in the America COMPETES Act, aggressive investment in
    technology and scientific research is crucial to ensure America
    sustains its global leadership and competitiveness. Science is now a
    truly global enterprise that has the potential to revolutionize the
    human experience, health and activity--the question is whether America
    will maintain its role leading the next generation of scientific
    advances.
        Future scientific progress requires the kinds of quantitative and
    interdisciplinary training that NSF fosters. NSF programs such as the
    Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT)
    are producing a cohort of scientists who have learned to work
    cooperatively, and have learned to learn across disciplinary
    boundaries, ensuring that the workforce is provided highly trained
    scientists who are unafraid of the challenges of the future.
        NSF-funded biologists and neuroscientists are discovering
    fundamental mechanisms important to understanding how humans and other
    animals behave, develop, communicate, learn, and process information.
    Understanding the neuroscience of animal diversity is necessary as we
    confront environmental and agricultural changes in the future. NSF-
    funded physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers
    have done ground-breaking work that enables the analysis of EEG data,
    the development of brain prosthetic devices, and other technologies
    that will assist in the rapid diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy and
    stroke. NSF-funded statisticians are developing new methods for
    analysis of the large amounts of genome data, on humans and other
    organisms, and developing better statistical tools for looking at the
    effects of the environment on human and animal populations. NSF-funded
    chemists have developed new methods that allows for the extremely
    accurate measurement of very small amounts of brain hormones.
        Indeed, many of the new findings in neuroscience can be traced back
    to fundamental work in these other fields that has contributed to new
    technologies of all kinds. This allows us to carry out new kinds of
    experiments not imaginable even 5-10 years ago. Consider these recent
    advances in neuroscience made possible by discoveries in other fields:
        Artificial Cochlea.--NSF-funded researchers at the University of
    Michigan developed an artificial cochlea to assist the hearing-
    impaired. The device, made mainly of Pyrex glass, silicone oil and
    silicon nitride, works by converting vibrations into electrical pulses
    that the brain is able to process. Via cochlear implants, nearly
    120,000 people have had partial hearing restored.
        Brain Mapping.--Scientists at the College of William and Mary used
    NSF funding to create real-time, dynamic maps of patients' brains to be
    used during neurosurgery. Computers use images taken prior to surgery
    combined with live data feeds from the patient's brain during the
    procedure to show changes and assist neurosurgeons with quicker, more
    accurate medical procedures that will result in lives saved.
        These discoveries have great potential to improve the lives of
    Americans and almost certainly would not have been made without the
    strong commitment to interdisciplinary research at NSF.

    What is the Society for Neuroscience?
        The Society for Neuroscience is a nonprofit membership organization
    of basic scientists and physicians who study the brain and nervous
    system. Recognizing the field's tremendous potential, the Society was
    formed in 1969 with less than 500 members. Today, SfN's membership
    numbers more than 38,000 and it is the world's largest organization of
    scientists devoted to the study of the brain. Neuroscience advances the
    understanding of human thought, emotion, and behavior. Our member
    neuroscientists work to understand animal and human nervous systems,
    how they develop, learn, and how they interact with their environment.
    Our membership includes investigators from backgrounds as diverse as
    physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, biology, biochemistry,
    and psychology, brought together to understand all aspects of brain
    function, from molecules and genes to cognition.
        SfN is devoted to education about the latest advances in brain
    research, and to raising awareness of the need to make neuroscience
    research a funding priority. Many SfN members are committed to
    developing educational innovations that take advantage of new
    neuroscience research.

    Conclusion
        The scope of the challenge of understanding the human mind requires
    a bold approach and the ability to undertake high-risk, high-reward
    projects. With proper funding, the NSF can do both. By laying the
    groundwork for revolutionary discoveries and advances in neuroscience
    with interdisciplinary research, NSF is poised to keep the United
    States competitive in the 21st century and beyond.
        We urge the subcommittee to support and approve a 20.8 percent
    increase to the NSF budget for fiscal year 2009. Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this testimony.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
    testimony on behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB).
    Founded in 1924, ASPB is a non-profit society of 5,000 plant
    scientists. My name is Rob McClung. I am Associate Dean of the Sciences
    at Dartmouth College and President of ASPB. ASPB urges Subcommittee
    support for the fiscal year 2009 budget request of the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) of $6.85 billion, including $5.59 billion for NSF
    Research and Related Activities and $790 million for NSF Education and
    Human Resources. ASPB urges a 16-percent increase for the NSF
    Directorate for Biological Sciences, which is the average of increases
    for all directorates in the fiscal year 2009 request.
        ASPB joined with 17 other science societies in a March 17 letter to
    the Chairman and Ranking Member expressing appreciation for your
    leadership in supporting NSF and comparable increases for all science
    disciplines. As noted in the letter, we are concerned that the NSF
    fiscal year 2009 budget request again tries to distinguish among the
    disciplines in its proposed increases for the research directorates.
        The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 indicates that the
    ``Committees also believe the Foundation should maintain comparable
    growth in fiscal year 2008, to the extent possible for the biological
    sciences and social, behavioral, and economic sciences directorates.
    Each of the science disciplines is valuable in maintaining U.S.
    competitiveness.'' This reflects language in the House Report. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member for your leadership on this
    provision.
        Your position is supported by the America COMPETES Act, which
    treats all disciplines as priorities. In addition, ``Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm'' said there should not be a disinvestment in such
    important fields as the life sciences and social sciences.
        We join with 17 other science societies in asking that the
    Subcommittee include report language in the fiscal year 2009
    Appropriations report that asks NSF to ensure that the biological
    sciences, geosciences and social, behavioral and economic sciences
    directorates receive increases in fiscal year 2009 that are comparable
    to the other directorates.
        It is only through advances in all science disciplines that the
    nation will take advantage of the full range of innovation the science
    community has to offer.
        Investment in world leading basic research sponsored by NSF
    contributes to U.S. leadership in the world in science and technology.
    U.S. leadership in a wide range of science disciplines is needed for
    U.S.-based development of new technologies that will help U.S.
    industries and workers compete and survive in the highly competitive
    global market.
        Support for NSF is an investment in the knowledge base of our
    nation. Existence of a highly educated workforce is a major
    consideration for businesses in determining what part of the world they
    will start or expand their operations. Despite the attractions of lower
    costs for wages, land, buildings and related costs to companies
    considering moving jobs offshore, it is the highly skilled workforce in
    the United States that plays a major role in contributing to job starts
    and business expansions here at home.
        The students, post doctoral students, assistant professors and
    professors supported at universities across the nation by NSF research
    and education grants make up a valuable talent pool highly prized by
    business and industry. In addition to the United States, other nations
    are aware of the contributions the science community can make to its
    economy.
        Educating and training its citizens to be world leading scientists
    and providing a reasonable opportunity for success in a science
    academic career have been keys to success for the U.S. science
    community and its related industries. Support provided by NSF for
    research proposals selected based on the highest scientific merit as
    determined through peer review is essential to development of the
    nation's scientific talent base. We're concerned that the high rate of
    rejection of even the highly rated biology proposals by NSF, will
    discourage some talented young students from pursuing a career in
    science.
        Grant approval rates at 21 percent for the NSF Directorate for
    Biological Sciences are below the average of 23 percent for all
    directorates in NSF Research and Related Activities. We appreciate the
    10.3 percent increase in the budget request for the Directorate for
    Biological Sciences. We request that the Subcommittee increase funding
    for the Directorate for Biological Sciences to the 16-percent average
    increase for Research and Related Activities in the budget request.
    This would make possible the granting of more awards for a greater
    number of high quality research proposals.
        The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences is the major source of
    support for fundamental non-medical biology research conducted at
    universities across the nation. Increased support for non-medical
    biology research could strengthen the nation's world standing and
    competitive strength in this important area of research. This would in
    turn strengthen U.S.-based industries dependent upon basic biological
    research, including biotechnology, bioenergy, biosafety, biodefense and
    agriculture.
        In concert with maintaining preeminence in science and technology,
    one of the keys to maintaining world leadership for the United States
    will be to assure a reliable and affordable energy supply for industry
    and consumers. Basic plant research supported by the NSF Directorate
    for Biological Sciences is providing knowledge that is contributing to
    bioenergy research capabilities of the U.S. Department of Energy and
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. For example the Plant Genome Research
    Program (PGRP) and 2010 Project are producing a treasure trove of
    knowledge of plant gene structure and functions.
        As projected in a report prepared by DOE and USDA in April 2005,
    advances in plant and related research will enable the United States to
    produce more than 1.3 billion tons of biomass ``enough to produce
    biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for
    transportation fuels.'' The report is titled ``Biomass as Feedstock for
    a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a
    Billion-Ton Annual Supply.'' The report can be found at: http://
    www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf.
        A letter to the editor I wrote on ``The next generation of
    biofuels'' that was published in The Washington Times March 6, 2008 and
    is appended to my statement commends the Congress and President for
    initiating needed investments in new generation biofuels. We encourage
    additional investment in all phases of plant research. This will hasten
    the day when biofuels make up 33 percent instead of three percent of
    the transportation fuels used in the United States.
        Plant genome research has helped propel plant science into a new
    modern era with far more capabilities in biology, bioinformatics,
    computational biology, modeling systems, systems biology and other
    areas. Findings in future years through the Plant Genome Research
    Program and 2010 Project will further enhance research capabilities
    with plants. As the primary source for food, fiber and feed and a
    promising clean alternative energy source, increased knowledge of plant
    structure and function is essential to meeting life-sustaining human
    needs.
        A recent report of the National Academies found many important
    contributions from the NSF-sponsored National Plant Genome Initiative.
    The report found that basic plant genome research serves a wide
    diversity of agricultural and environmental purposes, as well as
    contributing to basic scientific discovery. For example, by increasing
    knowledge of how plants cope with extreme environmental stresses, plant
    genomics research can help scientists more precisely breed or engineer
    plants that can thrive as climates change. This knowledge is
    particularly important with respect to how water is used to grow crops.
    Economically viable production of fuels from plant biomass, in
    quantities that could contribute to a reversal of the world's
    dependence on fossil fuels, will require increases in plant
    productivity and advances in plant biomass-to-fuel conversion.
        A key to maintaining the health and security of the United States
    and its citizens is to continue to provide secure food supplies. NSF
    support for basic plant research contributes to the local economies
    nationwide, including rural areas, while helping to secure the food
    supply of all Americans. As the first step of every food chain, plants
    and research on plants plays an essential role in meeting the
    nutritional needs of people here and abroad.
        The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences sponsors examination of
    basic research questions on plants and other organisms that will lead
    to technologies to continue a secure supply of domestically produced
    food and bioenergy.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to present our testimony
    before the Subcommittee.

                   [From The Washington Times, March 6, 2008]

                             letters to the editor
                        The Next Generation of Biofuels

        Oil closed at $100 a barrel Feb. 19 for the first time. The
    Washington Times reported on Feb. 20 (``Oil tops $100 on refinery,
    OPEC,'' Business) that fears that the Organization of the Petroleum
    Exporting Countries may cut production contributed to the price
    increase.
        Some analysts see this $100 mark as just a stop on the way to $200-
    per-barrel oil, possibly by the end of this decade. The reason cited is
    similar to newspaper reports on the bump to $100 per barrel--OPEC's
    control of supply.
        In addition to the economic and political challenges imposed by our
    reliance on foreign oil, we also need to be concerned that greenhouse
    gas (GHG) emissions associated with the use of fossil fuel contribute
    significantly to global warming, evident from observed increases in
    global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
    and a rising global average sea level. Is there a large-volume
    alternative to the use of increasingly costly oil with its high GHG
    emissions? There will be.
        We are at the early stages of research on the next generation of
    biofuels using plant cellulose. Plant stems, stalks and leaves will
    become low-cost feedstocks for biofuels. A 2005 report from the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy projects
    that there will be enough biomass (cellulose) to meet more than one-
    third of the current U.S. demand in transportation fuels.
        At the same time, next-generation biofuels will greatly lower
    emissions of stored carbon compared to gasoline. Biofuels will be
    better for Americans' pocketbooks and the environment.
        The President and Congress are to be commended for initiating
    needed investments in new-generation biofuels research. Additional
    investment is needed in all phases of plant research. This will help
    hasten the day when biofuels make up 33 percent instead of 3 percent of
    the transportation fuels used in the United States.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives

    Interest of the IME
        The IME is the safety and security association of the commercial
    explosives industry. The production, distribution, storage and use of
    explosives are highly regulated. ATF is one of the agencies that play a
    primary role in assuring that explosives are identified, tracked, and
    stored only by authorized persons. The ability to manufacture,
    distribute and use these products safely and securely is critical to
    this industry. We have carefully reviewed the Administration's fiscal
    year 2009 budget request for ATF and have the following comments about
    its impact on the commercial explosives industry.

    Addressing Statutory Mandates
        The commerce of explosives is one of the nation's most heavily
    regulated activities. As noted above, ATF plays a key role in this
    regulatory scheme through its implementation of Federal Explosives Law
    (FEL). Yet, ATF seems to have forgotten its statutory mandate to
    ``protect interstate and foreign commerce''--which is the business of
    the commercial explosives industry--in its quest to be a lead
    terrorist/criminal agency.\1\ ATF states that it is ``dedicated to
    preventing terrorism, reducing violent crime, and protecting our
    Nation.'' \2\ ATF's own data, however, suggests that commercial
    explosives are not a ``preferred tool'' of criminals or terrorists.\3\
    While ATF claims to work ``with . . . industry members . . . to make
    regulation less burdensome'', the needs of the legitimate explosives
    industry are secondary to the agency's criminal enforcement
    interests.\4\ By statute, ATF is supposed to ``take into consideration
    . . . the standards of safety and security recognized in the explosives
    industry'' when issuing rules and requirements.\5\ But, our
    recommendations are increasingly bypassed--we believe to the detriment
    of safety and security. Finally, we see ATF reaching out to regulate in
    areas that are not the Bureau's primary area of responsibility at a
    time when ATF is not keeping up with the responsibilities already on
    its plate. With this perspective, we offer the following comments on
    ATF's budget request and program performance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Public Law 91-452, Sec. 1101.
        \2\ ATF Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Submission, page 1.
        \3\ Over half of substances used in illegal bombing incidents are
    not regulated by ATF. Only 18 percent involve explosives subject to FEL
    requirements, and of these, 91 percent are common fireworks or
    components. ``Implementation of the Safe Explosives Act'', OIG, DOJ,
    Report Number I-2005-005, page 59.
        \4\ ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, page 39.
        \5\ 18 U.S.C. 842(j).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adequacy of Budget Resources
        As contrasted with the fiscal year 2008 budget justification, ATF's
    fiscal year 2009 budget request does not disclose the level of funding
    slated for its explosives regulatory program. Last year, the amount was
    $63.6 million or 23 percent of its entire Arson and Explosives (A&E)
    budget.\6\ Inasmuch as the fiscal year 2009 budget request anticipates
    no increase to current services, we expect that the allocation to the
    explosives regulatory program is roughly the same or $62.5 million of
    the $267.2 million request for the A&E program.\7\ While the budget
    request anticipates an increase of four FTE for the A&E program, the
    justification indicates that the revised FTE is only to maintain
    current services.\8\ As discussed below, we are concerned that ATF has
    not directed additional FTE to address the regulatory needs of the
    commercial explosives industry. Absent a reprogramming of resources,
    however, the Bureau's ability to perform its regulatory functions in a
    timely manner is jeopardized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ ATF Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Submission, page 47 & 14, and ATF
    Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, Exhibit G: Crosswalk of 2008
    Availability.
        \7\ ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, page 39.
        \8\ ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, Exhibit B.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Protect Commerce
        Our industry relies on ATF to efficiently and effectively perform a
    number of functions to ensure that the legitimate commerce of
    explosives can go forward safely and unimpeded.\9\ In this regard, we
    support all necessary resources for these essential services. However,
    the budget justification contains information suggesting that ATF will
    fall short of its three-year statutory obligation to inspect 100
    percent of its licensee/permittees as required by law.\10\ We are also
    disappointed not to see a performance measure concerning investigation
    of explosives thefts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ These functions include the issuance of licenses to companies
    engaged in the manufacture, importation, and distribution of commercial
    explosives, and permits to those that purchase and receive these
    materials, background checks of certain employees of licensees and
    permittees, and regulations to ensure that commercial explosives are
    stored safely and securely. Additionally, when explosives are stolen,
    lost, or used for illegal purposes, we rely on the ATF to recover
    products and investigate incidents as necessary.
        \10\ ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, page 48 and FN5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Industry Standards
        We take seriously the statutory obligation that ATF take into
    account industry's standards of safety when issuing rules and
    requirements. We have endeavored to fulfill this obligation through the
    development of industry best practices for safety and security,
    participation in relevant standard-setting organizations, and forums
    for training. We have offered ATF recommendations that we believe will
    enhance safety and security through participation in the rulemaking
    process, in the Bureau's research efforts, and in other standard
    setting activities. Our interface with ATF in these settings prompts
    the following comments.
      --Rulemakings.--Under the heading of ``Explosives . . . Regulatory
            Programs,'' ATF states that it has ``issued three rulings.''
            \11\ Two of these three rulings apply to the explosives
            industry.\12\ While we are appreciative of these rulings, they
            are interpretive statements of agency policy and should not be
            confused with regulatory activity conducted pursuant to the
            Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, ATF has six
            open rulemakings of interest and concern to the explosives
            industry, the same number of outstanding dockets as reported
            last year.\13\ The oldest of these was proposed in 2001.
            Several are a result of the enactment of the 2002 Safe
            Explosives Act (SEA). Two of these rulemakings were issued as
            ``interim final rules,'' which allows rules to be enforced
            without public input as to the effect of the rule on the
            regulated community. Subsequently, IME raised a number
            interpretative questions and concerns about these rules which
            are critical to the continued commerce of commercial
            explosives. Yet, ATF has delayed again the projected date for
            finalizing these rules until October 2008 and the projected
            dates for finalizing every other open rulemaking of
            significance to IME.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, page 44.
        \12\ The rulings allow for the use of computer records under
    certain conditions and storage options for residual amounts of bulk-
    blasting agents.
        \13\ Semiannual Agenda, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
    eAgendaMain (December 10, 2007).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Last year, Congress directed ATF to address these long-standing
    rulemaking concerns.\14\ Despite this fact, ATF has not requested
    additional staff to address its regulatory backlog or other pending
    requests for interpretive guidance and accommodations that are the day-
    to-day work of regulatory agencies. These regulatory tasks may be at
    odds with ATF's vision as a law enforcement agency, but they are
    critical to the lawful conduct of the commercial enterprises the Bureau
    controls.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Conference Report--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, H.R.
    2764/Public Law 110-161, page 257, citing, ``Open Rules.--The
    Appropriations Committees concur with language in the House Report
    regarding open rulemakings and the delay in resolving the rules due to
    staff shortages. The ATF to report within two months after enactment of
    this Act on the status of all open rules and the ATF's plans to address
    the backlog.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Data.--ATF is continuing efforts to enhance data capabilities.
            These efforts should be supported. We are only disappointed in
            one aspect. We rely on ATF's data collection and analysis
            capabilities. IME needs data about incidents and theft and
            losses to perfect our safety and security recommendations and
            practices. The latest full-year information we have about
            explosive incidents is from 2003. We urge the Subcommittee to
            ensure that ATF has the resources to gather and release this
            information in a timelier manner.
      --IMESAFR.--IME prides itself in being the safety and security
            advocates for the commercial explosives industry. The technical
            expertise of our members is a resource we gladly share with
            government agencies. In this regard, IME has spent years and
            hundreds of thousands of dollars developing and validating a
            credible alternative to strict interpretation of quantity-
            distance tables used to determine safe setback distances from
            explosives in collaboration the Department of Defense
            Explosives Safety Board and Canadian and U.S. regulatory
            agencies, including ATF. The result is a windows-based computer
            model for assessing the risk from a variety of commercial
            explosives activities called IMESAFR.\15\ Not only can IMESAFR
            determine the amount of risk presented, but it can also
            determine what factors drive the overall risk and what actions
            would lower risk, if necessary. The probability of events for
            the activities were based on the last 20 years experience in
            the United States and Canada and can be adjusted to account for
            different explosive sensitivities, additional security threats,
            and other factors that increase or decrease the base value.
            Following this effort, we expected that ATF would be willing to
            recognize this powerful assessment tool as an alternative for
            the regulated community to meet quantity-distance limitations,
            which limitations are themselves standards developed by the
            IME. However, this has not been the case. ATF has not taken
            advantage of opportunities to partner with IME and accept this
            risk-based approach to explosives safety. ATF's reluctance to
            recognize risk-based modeling is contrary to the norm practiced
            by all other federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities
            over the explosives industry. We believe that the consistency
            of risk analysis offered by IMESAFR is preferable to the
            haphazard ``variance'' approach ATF uses to address setback
            issues now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ IMESAFR was built on the DDESB's software model, SAFER. The
    DDESB currently uses SAFER and table-of-distance methods to approve or
    disapprove Department of Defense explosives activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Areas of Responsibility
        ATF has used resources to venture into areas of regulatory
    authority that are not within its primary sphere of responsibility. In
    2003, ATF chose to interpret FEL to give it authority to set clearance
    standards for workers involved in the transportation of commercial
    explosives. In 2005, there was a flurry of concern about the breadth of
    ATF security checklist documents that included standards for facility
    security such as surveillance, training, public and employee access,
    vehicle control, fencing and gates--areas of expertise reserved for the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Since then ATF has advocated for
    authority or otherwise suggested a role to regulate ammonium nitrate
    and other easily purchased/unregulated materials used by terrorists in
    improvised explosive devices.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ ATF Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Submission, pages 18, 21, 53, 54,
    56 and 66. ATF Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Submission, pages 6, 7, 44, 45,
    and 49. ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, pages 7 and 45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While we respect ATF's expertise and authority to establish
    standards for explosives storage magazines, ATF's statutory authority
    does not reach to the security of ammonium nitrate or other explosive
    precursors.\17\ Congress has tasked this responsibility to the DHS
    under its Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards authority and
    through the enactment of the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of
    2007.\18\ Many materials can be manipulated to produce an explosive
    effect. However, in their unadulterated state they will not
    explode.\19\ DHS is far better positioned to address the range of
    issues raised by the prevalence of these precursor materials. According
    to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, DHS is charged to
    identify, prioritize and coordinate protection of the nation's critical
    infrastructure, of which chemical manufacturing is one sector.\20\ The
    Government Accountability Office, in a report on implementation of
    critical infrastructure programs, identifies no role for the ATF, or
    the Department of Justice, in developing a national infrastructure
    protection plan or in guarding that infrastructure and its
    products.\21\ IME supports chemical facility, hazardous materials
    transportation and ammonium nitrate security standards. However, we
    question ATF's involvement and attendant use of resources in these
    areas, when the Bureau consistently falls behind in its own vital
    regulatory responsibilities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ ``Implementation of the Safe Explosives Act'', OIG, DOJ,
    Report Number I-2005-005, page ii.
        \18\ 72 FR 17688 (April 9, 2007) & 72 FR 65396 (November 20, 2007)
    and. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, H.R. 2764/Public Law
    110-161, sec. 563.
        \19\ Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings, NRC, 1998, page
    130.
        \20\ Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-7, paragraphs 13
    & 15, December 17, 2003.
        \21\ Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges Regarding the
    National Strategy for Homeland Security, January 2005, GAO-05-33, pages
    18, 47, 78 and 133.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Performance Measure Improvements
        For a number of years, IME has expressed concern about the lack of
    appropriate performance measures for the commercial explosives
    industry. Currently, ATF has three performance and two efficiency
    measures that apply to the commercial explosives industry.\22\ Only one
    performance and one efficiency measure are directed at facilitating
    regulatory compliance. These measures are the number and percentage of
    explosives licensee/permittees that are inspected and the percent of
    perfected explosives applications acted on within 90 days. Yet, ATF is
    now proposing to delete the only efficiency measure applicable to the
    explosives industry because the ``measure was never developed.'' \23\
    Not only should Congress direct the Bureau to restore and implement
    this measure, it should direct the agency to institute other measures
    of performance and efficiency for the explosives regulatory program. We
    have advocated for measures showing the number of background checks
    that ATF has performed, within what average timeframe, and of those,
    how many individuals failed to receive clearance, and of those, how
    many appealed the Bureau's findings; the number of rulemakings
    outstanding and their priority; turnover rates among agents and
    inspectors; and the number of individuals from which agencies that are
    trained through ATF programs. Absent information of this type, it is
    unclear how Congress can effectively oversee ATF's explosives
    operations and determine the adequacy of its budget request.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, page 49.
        \23\ ATF Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission, page 49.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Leadership
        The ATF has been without a director since August 2006. Director-
    designee Michael J. Sullivan has served with distinction for nearly a
    year. He came at a particularly challenging time and has overseen the
    agency's move to its new headquarters. We believe the Bureau has been
    too long without permanent leadership and we urge Congress to promptly
    act on this nomination.

    Conclusion
        The manufacture and distribution of explosives is accomplished with
    a remarkable degree of safety and security. We recognize the important
    role played by ATF in helping our industry achieve and maintain safe
    and secure workplaces. Industry and the public trust that ATF has the
    resources to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. It is up to
    Congress and, in particular, this Subcommittee to ensure that ATF has
    the resources it needs. We strongly recommend full funding for ATF's
    explosives program.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Association for Psychological Science

    Summary of Recommendations
      --APS supports the Coalition for National Science Funding
            recommendation of $7.326 billion for the National Science
            Foundation in fiscal year 2009.
      --We ask for the Committee's support of Section 7018b of the America
            COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69) which provides equal
            consideration for NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic
            Sciences Directorate. This will ensure that the behavioral and
            social sciences share proportionately in the increases received
            by NSF, which is essential to strengthen the vital role of
            these sciences in achieving innovation and realizing the full
            potential of basic research to benefit our Nation.
      --NSF-funded psychological scientists have won the Nobel Prize and
            the President's Medal of Science for their groundbreaking work.
            Greater funding for the SBE Directorate will result in more
            such breakthroughs and will ensure that the Nation continues as
            the world's leader in behavioral and social science research
            and training.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: Thank you for this
    opportunity to present the views of the Association for Psychological
    Science (APS) on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations of the National
    Science Foundation (NSF). APS is dedicated to the promotion,
    protection, and advancement of the interests of scientifically oriented
    psychology in research, application, teaching, and the improvement of
    human welfare. Our 20,000 members are scientists and academics at the
    Nation's universities and colleges. The NSF supports many members of
    APS, and a great deal of basic research in our field simply could not
    exist without NSF funding.

    The Nation's Premiere Basic Research Enterprise
        In the America COMPETES Act of 2007, Congress and the President
    agreed that basic science research budgets should be doubled. The
    fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriation, however, did not provide the
    necessary funds to keep pace with this goal. The National Science
    Foundation received only a 2.5 percent increase for fiscal year 2008,
    $364 million less than the President's request. The continued
    underfunding of NSF constitutes a significant delay in this Nation's
    science and technology advancement--one we cannot afford in the face of
    rising global competitiveness.
        A renewed commitment to basic research and educational programs at
    NSF is essential to capitalize on the enormous promise of scientific
    innovation, to train future scientists, and to ensure the success of
    multidisciplinary initiatives. The basic science community asks the
    Committee to make the underlying intent of this Act a reality. The
    increase we are recommending today, as a member of the Coalition for
    National Science Funding, is a critical step in offsetting the under-
    funding that has been a chronic condition for NSF.

    The Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate
        It is crucial to recognize the role the behavioral and social
    sciences play in fostering innovation. The President's Science Advisor
    and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John
    Marburger, has underscored the importance of our discipline in this
    endeavor, and your colleagues in the House, led by Subcommittee on
    Research and Science Education Chair Brian Baird, have asked NSF to
    comply with the statutory requirement in Public Law 110-69, Section
    7018b to give equal consideration to the Social, Behavioral, and
    Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate.
        Under the Administration's budget plan, the SBE Directorate would
    receive $233.48 million, 8.5 percent over fiscal year 2008. While this
    stems the tide of below-average increases in previous years, it is
    unacceptably disproportionate to other Directorates, which are
    receiving between 10.3 and 20.2 percent increases. The America COMPETES
    Act specifically called on NSF not to disinvest in the behavioral and
    social sciences over the long term. We are concerned about this
    imbalance, given the enormous potential of behavioral science to
    address many critical issues facing the Nation, including global
    competitiveness. To offset previous years' under-funding, we ask the
    Committee to, at the very least, give the SBE Directorate the 8.5
    percent increase the President proposed in this year's NSF budget
    request. We also ask that the SBE Directorate share proportionately in
    any such increases ultimately received by NSF.
        An Overview of Basic Psychological Research.--NSF programs and
    initiatives that involve psychological science are our best chance to
    solve the enigma that has perplexed us for so long: How does the human
    mind work and develop? APS members include many scientists who conduct
    basic research in areas such as learning, cognition, and memory, and
    the linked mechanisms of how we process information through visual and
    auditory perception. Others study judgment and decision-making (which
    is the focus of a Nobel prize recently awarded to APS Fellow and NSF
    grantee Daniel Kahneman); mathematical reasoning (the focus of the
    recent President's Medal of Science awarded to APS Fellow and NSF
    Grantee R. Duncan Luce); language development; the developmental
    origins of behavior; and the impact of individual, environmental, and
    social factors in behavior.
        What's more, basic psychological research supported by NSF and
    conducted by APS members ultimately has had a wide range of
    applications, including designing technology that incorporates the
    perceptual and cognitive functioning of humans; teaching math to
    children; improving learning through the use of technology; developing
    more effective hearing aids and speech recognition machines; increasing
    workforce productivity; and ameliorating social problems such as
    prejudice or violence. While this is a diverse range of topics, all
    these areas of research are bound together by a simple notion: that
    understanding the human mind, brain, and behavior is crucial to
    maximizing human potential. That places these pursuits squarely at the
    forefront of several of the most pressing issues facing the Nation,
    this Congress, and the Administration.

    SBE Directorate Highlights
        Research supported by the SBE Directorate has the potential to
    increase employee productivity, improve decision making in critical
    military or civilian emergency situations, and inform the public
    policymaking processes across a range of areas. To give just a few
    examples:
        Developmental and Learning Sciences.--This program supports studies
    that increase our understanding of cognitive, linguistic, social,
    cultural, and biological processes related to children's and
    adolescents' development and learning. This kind of research adds to
    our basic knowledge of how people learn and the underlying
    developmental processes that support learning. For example, one
    recently funded study is identifying the cognitive, emotional, and
    social characteristics that make some children more suggestible than
    others with respect to legal questioning. The results of these studies
    will have important implications for developing scientifically sound
    interviews that produce the most accurate reports from children, and
    for constructing instruments to detect children who are prone to
    suggestive factors, which can be adapted for use in schools, mental
    health, medical, and forensic contexts.
        Perception, Action, and Cognition.--The perception, action, and
    cognition program at NSF supports research on these three functions,
    and the development of these capacities. Topics include vision,
    audition, attention, memory, reasoning, written and spoken discourse,
    motor control, and developmental issues in all topic areas. One recent
    study funded by this program looks at the important role language plays
    in emotion perception, and understanding the mechanisms by which
    language might influence emotion perception. This research shows that
    the emotions you see in others are influenced by what you know about
    emotion (especially the language that you speak). It may well be the
    case that people can be taught to become better emotion perceivers, and
    hence, better communicators.
        Cognitive Neuroscience.--Cognitive neuroscience, within the last
    decade, has become an active and influential discipline, relying on the
    interaction of a number of sciences, including psychology, cognitive
    science, neurology, neuroimaging, physiology, and others. The cross-
    disciplinary aspects of this field have spurred a rapid growth in
    significant scientific advances. The blooming field of social
    neuroscience is yielding research, for example, on the psychological
    and neural mechanisms involved in the experience of empathy. Brain
    imaging is being used to measure the effects of stigma, racial bias,
    similarity, and past shared experiences between oneself and others.
    This important research will yield a better understanding of the
    cognitive and neurological mechanisms involved in empathy as well as
    our ability to share feelings and care for others. Both the findings
    and the techniques will be of tremendous value to clinicians as well as
    other researchers.

    Cross-Cutting Behavioral Initiatives at NSF
        Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation.--This new, cutting-edge
    program supports research on computational thinking, complexity, and
    interacting systems. NSF expects that this ambitious new undertaking
    with potentially transformative results will revolutionize the field
    and shed light onto wide-ranging topics such as emergent phenomena and
    tipping points in human development. Research into the complexity of
    social systems will constitute a significant contribution to this
    endeavor. This investment will help maintain our Nation's expertise in
    information technology, an essential element for our future
    competitiveness.
        Adaptive Systems Technology.--A new interdisciplinary initiative,
    this program recognizes the essential human element of exciting new
    technologies and machines. The human-machine interface is crucial to
    explore if we are going to make the best use of the latest technology.
    While biologists describe the trajectory from simple to complex systems
    and chemists explain the processes underlying complex neural
    organization, cognitive scientists explore how systems compute and
    behavioral scientists provide insights into how organisms learn and
    adapt to their environment. By working together, these scientists can
    reap the benefits of and develop new ideas through collaboration.
        Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP).--In 2005, the
    President's Science Advisor, John Marburger, called for a national
    ``science of science policy,'' asking for research on innovation and
    scientific discovery processes, as well as on how policymakers use
    science to shape policy. In response, NSF created the Science of
    Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) research program. By studying
    science as a social process, SciSIP's goal is the development of an
    evidence-based platform for science policy. One example of the kind of
    ideas materializing from this initiative is the measurement of well-
    being, which deals with such questions as: How can science policy and
    science outcomes be evaluated by measuring societal well-being? Can
    scientific priorities be based on well-being? Does well-being as an
    outcome lead to different science priorities than considering other
    outcomes? What about national competitiveness and productivity in
    relation to science and well-being? Addressing these questions has
    implications for health and the economy, both of which are linked to
    well-being.
        In closing, I want to note that building and sustaining the
    capacity for innovation and discovery in the behavioral sciences is a
    goal of the National Science Foundation. We ask that you encourage
    NSF's efforts in these areas, not just those activities described here,
    but the full range of activities supported by the SBE directorate and
    by NSF at large. Your support will help NSF lay the groundwork for this
    long-overdue emphasis on these sciences. Thank you.
        We would be pleased to answer any questions.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF). The ASM is the largest single life
    science organization with more than 42,000 members. The ASM mission is
    to enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding
    of life processes, and to promote the application of this knowledge for
    improved health and environmental well-being.
        The President requests a 13 percent increase in the NSF's budget
    for fiscal year 2009 for a total funding level of $6.85 billion.
    Included in this request is $5.6 billion for Research and Related
    Activities (R&RA), an increase of $773 million, or 16 percent above
    fiscal year 2008. With the 16 percent growth, NSF anticipates
    supporting an additional 1,370 research grants, which will help
    increase the overall funding rate to 23 percent from the 21 percent
    rate in fiscal year 2008. However, the success rates in many important
    biological sciences programs remain below 20 percent. The ASM,
    therefore, recommends a 16 percent, or $98 million, increase for BIO,
    consistent with the requested increase for R&RA. The ASM also
    recommends that the overall increase for R&RA be $808 million, or 16.8
    percent, and the overall increase for NSF be 13.6 percent above fiscal
    year 2008, to cover ASM's recommended increase for BIO without
    affecting the requested increases for other programs.
        The NSF plays a critical role in the discovery of new knowledge in
    the biological sciences. The Society has a number of concerns about BIO
    funding for the biological sciences, which are discussed below. Our
    nation's competitiveness in areas such as nanotechnology, climate
    change, water sustainability, and alternative energy sources depends on
    innovation in the biological sciences. It is essential that NSF
    continue strong support for the biological sciences to maintain and
    expand the contributions of biological sciences research for human,
    environmental, and economic well being.
        The NSF has successfully leveraged its resources for over half a
    century to promote progress in all fields of science and to enhance its
    effectiveness and productivity. The NSF builds the nation's research
    capability through investments in advanced instrumentation and
    facilities, and by supporting excellence in science and engineering
    research and education through its competitive, peer-reviewed grants
    programs. These activities are essential for increasing the nation's
    economic and scientific competitiveness. Nearly 90 percent of the NSF's
    budget supports extramural grants, selected through a competitive merit
    review process, that meet the mission of the Foundation ``to promote
    the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity,
    and welfare; to secure the national defense . . .'' The NSF has been
    especially responsive to and benefited from supporting individual
    investigators and investigator-initiated ideas.
        The ASM particularly supports increased funding for R&RA. This
    funding will promote support for unsolicited grants that potentially
    advance the frontiers of learning and discovery. The ASM
    enthusiastically supports the continuation of the NSF's tradition of
    funding investigator-initiated research.

    NSF Biological Sciences
        The NSF provides 67 percent, about two-thirds, of federal support
    for U.S. academic basic research in non-medical biological sciences.
    This means that NSF's BIO, is arguably the most important source of
    non-medical funding for biological research, infrastructure, and
    education in the United States. Through its long history of
    productivity and innovation, biological research supported by the NSF
    has been critical for understanding issues of national importance such
    as the environment, economy, agriculture, and human welfare.
        NSF funding is not only important for understanding the functions
    and behaviors of organisms, it is especially important for
    understanding how organisms, such as microbes, function and interact
    with physical and chemical systems. For example, basic biological
    research has provided physicists and chemists with model systems used
    in nanotechnology, chemical production and renewable energy generation,
    each of which are important for American competitiveness. Thus, it is
    essential to continue strong investments in the biological sciences,
    since they translate to advances in physical, mathematical,
    engineering, and computational sciences.
        The Administration has proposed an fiscal year 2009 budget for BIO
    of $675 million, an increase of 10.3 percent over fiscal year 2008.
    This increase continues along the proposed track of the President's
    American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The ASM is concerned that
    funding for BIO since fiscal year 2003 has flattened and even
    decreased. The success rate of competitive awards for BIO in fiscal
    year 2009 is estimated at 19 percent, well below the overall NSF
    estimated funding rate of 23 percent. Additionally, some programs
    within BIO have funding rates less than 14 percent, such as the
    Microbial Observatories/Microbial Interactions and Processes (MO/MIP)
    programs, Assembling the Tree of Life program, and the Ecology of
    Infectious Diseases program. Funding rates for BIO research grants have
    been consistently lower than agency wide average research funding
    rates, and the gap between BIO and agency wide funding rates has
    increasingly widened in the last three years.
        Scientific opportunities in the biological sciences are increasing
    significantly, illustrated by the estimated 20 percent increase in BIO
    research grant proposals from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year
    2007. However, as opportunities have steadily increased, BIO research
    grant funding rates have decreased significantly from 26 percent in
    fiscal year 2003 down to an estimated 19 percent in fiscal year 2007.
        Growth in BIO is essential for progress in the biological sciences.
    Growth in the total NSF budget should be reflected by real growth in
    BIO as well as other NSF directorates. We, therefore, recommend an
    increase in the BIO budget consistent with the President's request for
    R&RA in fiscal year 2009, of 16 percent, for a total of $710 million.
        Research in BIO is key to providing fundamental support that is
    needed for research supported by other NSF directorates. The rapid
    growth in knowledge by the biological sciences is resulting in the
    formation of new multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and
    transdisciplinary efforts that often involve physical and chemical
    sciences and engineering. Advances in programs in bioenergy and
    biophysics now depend as much on biology as they do on other scientific
    disciplines. BIO supports scientific disciplines other than the
    biological sciences through programs such as Environmental Genomics,
    MO/MIP, and contributes to interagency priorities, such as climate
    change and the new NSF-wide program Dynamics of Water Processes in the
    Environment (WATER).
                BIO MO/MIP
        In addition to its general concerns about biological sciences
    funding, the ASM is concerned with a proposal to shift funding in
    fiscal year 2009 to strengthen core BIO programs and to eliminate
    support for the demonstrably highly successful Microbial Observatories
    (MO), Microbial Interactions and Processes (MIP) programs. These
    programs represent the only sustained national initiatives to describe
    broadly and understand the diversity of microbial life within the
    United States. Loss of these programs will mean that other nations with
    which the United States competes in biotechnology (e.g., China, Japan,
    Korea, Germany) will continue to support efforts to discover microbial
    diversity, while the US decreases support.
        Differences in funding emphases between existing core programs and
    microbe-specific programs will likely lead to lower success rates and
    less funding for microbial researchers. Funding success rates for MO/
    MIP are already less than 10 percent. The ASM recommends that MO and
    MIP should be identified as a part of the core programs in BIO, rather
    than be discontinued. The ASM also recommends increased support for MO/
    MIP.
        Maintaining programs such as MO/MIP is essential to ensure
    continued discovery of the microbial world, over 99 percent of which
    remains undescribed. Because they are ubiquitous and functionally more
    diverse than all plants and animals combined, microbes continue to
    offer enormous economic potential for industry, agriculture, and
    medicine. Bioprospecting has already led to many commercial
    applications, including probiotics, biofuels, and wastewater treatment.
    The wealth of bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that have yet
    to be cultivated or understood comprise an untapped resource for
    industry, agriculture, and medicine.
        Loss of MO/MIP cannot help but reduce our nation's competitiveness
    and ability to sustain leadership in microbial biology. Loss of these
    programs will also adversely affect agricultural research involving a
    collaboration between USDA and NSF.

    NEON
        The ASM supports the establishment of the National Environmental
    Observatories Network (NEON), which will be the first national
    ecological measurement and observation system designed to answer
    fundamental regional- to continental-scale scientific questions about
    the current state of major ecosystems and their response to climate
    change and other disturbances. Full implementation of the NEON platform
    will transform our ability to detect and predict changes in ecosystems,
    and to provide information necessary to respond to change. Integration
    of microbial biology into the NEON framework also promises to provide a
    new level of understanding of the interactions between microbes,
    ecosystems and climate change. The ASM strongly encourages this
    integration through expanded funding in BIO, and expresses its concern
    that funding for NEON-related research not reduce the capacities of
    current BIO programs.

    Support for Geosciences, Engineering, and Physical Sciences
        Biology and microbial biology are important components of all the
    research directorates at NSF and should be strongly supported within
    them. The ASM supports the fiscal year 2009 proposed increases in
    funding for the research activities at the Geosciences Directorate
    (GEO), the Engineering Directorate (ENG), and the Mathematical and
    Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS).
        The Geobiology and Low-Temperature Geochemistry program in GEO
    provides an example of the mutually beneficial relationship between
    biological sciences and geosciences. Among other areas, this program
    examines interactions between biological and geological systems at all
    scales of space and time, interactions between microbes and
    economically important resources, and interactions among microbes,
    minerals and groundwater. The Geobiology and Low-Temperature
    Geochemistry Program also facilitates cross-disciplinary efforts to
    harness new bioanalytical tools, such as those emerging from molecular
    biology. The ASM supports the proposed request of $178 million for
    Earth Sciences (EAR), an increase of $22 million, or 14 percent, above
    fiscal year 2008, with an emphasis towards increased support for the
    biological geosciences and $354 million for Ocean Sciences Funding
    (OCE), an increase of $43 million, or 14 percent above fiscal year
    2008.
        Similarly, the Engineering Directorate employs microbial research
    to examine problems involved in the processing and manufacture of
    economically important products, and in the efficient utilization of
    chemical resources and renewable bioresources. Much of this work
    depends on bioinformatics originating from genomic and proteomic
    studies. The ASM supports the proposed request of $173 million for
    Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET),
    an increase of $42 million or 32 percent, above fiscal year 2008. High
    emphasis applications for the biological sciences within this program
    include postgenomic engineering, tissue engineering, biophotonics,
    nano-biosystems, and biotechnology, leading to improved biosensors,
    biomaterials, and controlled drug release.
        Collaboration with other scientific disciplines is also very
    important for continued progress in physics, including biological
    physics at molecular and cellular levels. MPS supports
    interdisciplinary research that greatly benefits the physical sciences
    as well as the biological sciences by creating tools that assist in
    advancing biological research and other disciplines. The ASM also
    supports the NSF-wide investment, Dynamics of Water Processes in the
    Environment (WATER). WATER supports research on living organisms in
    freshwater ecological systems.

    Workforce Development and Training
        Support for science and engineering education, from pre-K through
    graduate school and beyond is an essential part of NSF's mission.
    Research funded by NSF is thoroughly integrated with education to help
    ensure that there will always be a skilled workforce to support new and
    future scientific, engineering, and technological fields, and a robust
    community of educators to train and inspire coming generations.
        In fiscal year 2007 BIO alone, support approximately 13,000 people,
    including senior researchers, other professionals, postdoctorates,
    graduate students, undergraduate students, and K-12 teachers. Due to
    flat funding in fiscal year 2008, this number dropped to approximately
    12,700. Increased support for the NSF is essential to fostering a
    competitive, well-trained scientific workforce. The proposed increase
    for BIO is estimated to support over 13,500 senior researchers, other
    professionals, postdoctorates, graduate students, undergraduate
    students, and K-12 teachers.

    Conclusion
        Support for the NSF is essential for maintaining and improving the
    nation's scientific and economic competitiveness. The ASM recommends a
    13.6 percent increase in funding for the NSF, slightly above the
    President's request, but below the NSF's authorized level for fiscal
    year 2009. However, the ASM is concerned that BIO has suffered from
    flat funding over the last six years and we recommend at least a 16
    percent increase for BIO, the same as the increase proposed by the
    President for the entire Research and Related Activities, of which BIO
    is a part. This increase will recapture ground lost to inflation,
    expand the currently successful programs, and take advantage of new
    scientific opportunities in the biological sciences, such as
    metagenomics. Increased funding for the NSF should ensure adequate
    funding for all areas of science. One of the primary strengths of the
    NSF is its ability to catalyze important interactions among research
    disciplines in the physical and biological sciences. Consequently, all
    science must be well funded and encouraged.
        The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
    and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as it considers the
    fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the NSF.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Sea Grant Association

        The Sea Grant Association (SGA) \1\ respectfully submits for the
    official record this written testimony for fiscal year 2009 to the
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.
    SGA joins with other stakeholders in urging the Subcommittee to
    recognize and support the vital programs of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and requests that the Subcommittee
    fund NOAA at $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2009. Further, SGA requests
    that within the overall fiscal year 2009 appropriation for NOAA, the
    Subcommittee appropriate $72 million for the National Sea Grant College
    Program, which is a key component of NOAA's extramural research,
    education and outreach enterprise playing a direct role in keeping our
    coastal communities safe, prosperous, and vibrant.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Growth of the National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) has
    been stunted during that last few years, which over time has begun to
    directly impact the services delivered on a daily basis to our coastal
    communities. The constituents of the Sea Grant program--coastal
    resource managers, state and local governments, tourism sectors,
    fishing industries, and the general public to name a few--have come to
    expect and rely on a certain level of service and expertise from the
    Sea Grant program. However, as the needs of our coastal communities
    have increased, funding required for the Sea Grant program to support
    these needs has not kept pace. The SGA recommendation of $72 million is
    realistic and even represents an amount below that which is authorized
    for the program for fiscal year 2004 \2\. The programmatic request of
    $72 million is also consistent with the amount requested in a Dear
    Colleague Letter for Sea Grant that was submitted to your Subcommittee
    earlier this month with 32 signatures. In addition, attached is a list
    of about 300 stakeholders who attest to the value of the Sea Grant
    program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002,
    Public Law 107-299.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With the costs of research and education rising, the near flat-
    funding of Sea Grant during the last few years has forced programs to
    reduce staff and leave numerous high-quality research and outreach
    projects unsupported. An increased investment in Sea Grant will not
    only enhance its ability to meet these additional demands, it will also
    leverage additional state and university matching funds, reflecting its
    unique value as a federal-state partnership.
        The Administration's request of $55 million for fiscal year 2009
    would reverse the small progress made by the program last year by
    eliminating the modest growth provided by the Congress for fiscal year
    2008 (for a total fiscal year 2008 budget of $57.1 million). At the
    level proposed by the Administration, the Sea Grant program would be
    asked to operate at its lowest level in its 40 year history in 2007
    dollars (see the below chart).

        The implications of what is essentially a freeze in funding for Sea
    Grant are significant with respect to the economy, sustainability of
    natural resources, and national safety and security. The Sea Grant
    network is severely strained and challenged to support its current
    activities, staff, and operations within this budget scenario, and has
    difficulty investing in important new research, education and outreach
    geared toward addressing emerging challenges in such areas as regional
    climate change and coastal community resiliency.
        At present, only about 12 percent of the research proposals
    submitted for funding to the Sea Grant program are funded due to
    resource constraints. By contrast, the research funding success rate at
    the National Science Foundation is just over 20 percent. Sea Grant
    directors estimate that they receive enough high quality meritorious
    research proposals--of importance and relevance to NOAA's mission--to
    fund about 25 percent, or double what the program is currently able to
    support. Within the current budget for Sea Grant of $57.1 million,
    about $30 million is used to support research. The balance of the Sea
    Grant budget is used to support related extension, communication,
    education and program management. Based on this, the research portion
    of the Sea Grant program could responsibly manage between $60 million
    to $80 million annually--or double its current research budget. At this
    level, the Sea Grant program could support important research proposals
    that currently go unfunded to answer questions and provide new
    knowledge needed by ocean and coastal resource managers.
        It is also important to remember that the success of the Sea Grant
    program is attributable to its unique ability to intimately tie
    research results to an extension, communication, and education process
    that is essential to ensure the use of science to meet the needs of our
    citizens. The current level of expenditure for extension,
    communication, and education in the Sea Grant program is approximately
    $25 million. A recent report to the NOAA Science Advisory Board \3\
    called on NOAA to substantially expand its extension, outreach, and
    education activities. Sea Grant has the experience and the ``on-the-
    ground'' network to fulfill that policy recommendation immediately if
    sufficient additional support from NOAA were forthcoming. As the
    research program expands to meet increasing demands, so too must the
    tools that put the research results in the hands of decision makers so
    that they can be utilized. The Sea Grant extension, communication, and
    education function should be increased commensurate with the level of
    research funding in the program from its current $25 million to between
    $40 million to $50 million to ensure the continued balanced approach
    when it comes to research, extension, communication, and education.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Engaging NOAA's Constituents: A Report from the NOAA Science
    Advisory Board, March 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An Investment in the Economic, Environmental and Social Well-being of
            the Nation
        Research and outreach programs supported by Sea Grant are based on
    competition, undergo rigorous peer-review, and are geared toward
    addressing the marine, coastal and Great Lakes challenges 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.

    Informing Smart Policy through Sound Science
        The interface between science and policy is precisely where the Sea
    Grant program applies its precious resources. As the program makes
    decisions on the funding of research projects, issues that are acutely
    important to local, regional and national decision-makers receive
    priority attention. Extension and educational resources are also
    deployed in ways that enhance the relevance and impact of the science
    and discoveries that result from Sea Grant-funded research.
        There is a growing demand from our nation's decision makers and
    public for scientifically-sound decisions to many of today's complex
    problems. Sea Grant's integration of science and outreach allows for
    up-to-date and ongoing needs assessment that helps identify the most
    important and timely issues that benefit from science-based decision
    making. Technological and scientific approaches, though desirable,
    cannot solve all of society's problems, and Sea Grant's ability to
    embed itself within the communities it serves enables the social
    dynamics of human ecology to be incorporated thereby improving the
    utility and impact of investments through the Sea Grant program. Sea
    Grant's work is always fresh. Although the program has been in place
    for 40 years, the constant attention to societal needs through
    stakeholder interactions allows the program to be nimble and
    responsive, while also maintaining the rigor and reliability of a
    strategic enterprise.
        In recent years, the work of two major national commissions \4\
    have brought into focus the importance of our oceans and coasts to our
    nation's natural heritage, security, and economy. With an offshore
    ocean jurisdiction larger than the total land mass of the United
    States, U.S. waters support rich and diverse systems of ocean life,
    provide a protective buffer, and support important commerce, trade,
    energy, and mineral resources. And in each example, Sea Grant is there.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy, April 20, 2004; America's Living Oceans: Charting a
    Course for Sea Change, Pew Oceans Commission, June 2, 2003.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --More than $1 trillion, or one-tenth, of the nation's annual gross
            domestic product (GDP) is generated within near-shore areas,
            the relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the
            coast. Looking at all coastal watershed counties, the
            contribution swells to over $6.1 trillion, more than half of
            the nation's GDP;
      --In 2003, ocean-related economic activity contributed more than $119
            billion to American prosperity and supported over 2.2 million
            jobs. Roughly three-quarters of the jobs and half the economic
            value were produced by ocean-related tourism and recreation.
            More than 13 million jobs are related to trade transported by
            the network of inland waterways and ports that support U.S.
            waterborne commerce;
      --Annually, the nation's ports handle more than $700 billion in
            goods, and the cruise industry and its passengers account for
            $11 billion in spending;
      --The commercial fishing industry's total value exceeds $28 billion
            annually, with the recreational saltwater fishing industry
            valued at around $20 billion, and the annual U.S. retail trade
            in ornamental fish worth another $3 billion; and
      --Nationwide retail expenditures on recreational boating exceeded $30
            billion in 2002.
        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 for fiscal
    year 2009. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views.
        For more information, please visit www.sga.seagrant.org or contact:
    Paul Anderson, SGA President, 207.581.1435, panderson@maine.edu; Rick
    DeVoe, SGA External Relations Committee Chair, 843.727.2078,
    rick.devoe@scseagrant.org; Joel Widder, Government Relations,
    202.289.7475, jwidder@lewis-burke.com.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Psychological Association

        The American Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and
    professional organization of more than 148,000 psychologists and
    affiliates, is pleased to submit testimony for the record. Because our
    behavioral scientists play vital roles within the National Science
    Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) within the Department of
    Justice (DOJ), APA will address the proposed fiscal year 2009 research
    budgets for each of these agencies:
      --APA recommends that the Subcommittee support the President's fiscal
            year 2009 request of $6.85 billion for NSF.
      --APA requests that the Subcommittee provide $18.3 billion for NASA,
            including $671 million for NASA Advanced Capabilities (which
            houses the Human Research Program), and $594 million for NASA
            Aeronautics.
      --APA urges the Subcommittee to reverse the trend of budgetary
            neglect for NIJ (within DOJ) by providing $50 million in fiscal
            year 2009 for NIJ programs.

    National Science Foundation
                Core Psychological Research at NSF
        NSF is the only federal agency whose primary mission is to support
    basic research and education in math, engineering and science--
    including the behavioral and social sciences. NSF's investment in basic
    research across these disciplines has allowed for extraordinary
    scientific and technological progress, ensuring continued economic
    growth, improvements in the design, implementation and evaluation of
    public education, strengthened national security, and the generation of
    cutting edge new knowledge.
        APA supports the Administration request of $6.85 billion for NSF in
    fiscal year 2009, and urges Congress to implement a doubling of the NSF
    budget over the next ten years. This is consistent with Administration
    and Congressional plans to invest substantially in federal science
    agencies with the capacity to stimulate global competitiveness and
    innovation. Within the overall NSF budget, APA supports a strong
    investment in psychological research throughout the research and
    education directorates foundation-wide, in order to address critical
    national challenges with an understanding of human behavior at their
    core. The America COMPETES Act specifically noted the importance of
    funding the social sciences and this must be reflected in an increase
    for NSF's behavioral and social science research portfolio comparable
    to proposed increases for other sciences at NSF.
        Although psychologists receive funding from diverse programs within
    NSF, most core psychological research is supported by the Social,
    Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE), with its focus on
    the variables that determine human behavior across all ages, affect
    interactions among individuals and groups, and decide how social and
    economic systems develop and change. In addition to core behavioral
    research in cognitive neuroscience, human cognition and perception,
    learning and development, and social psychology, SBE also will continue
    to support the development of science metrics through its Science of
    Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) research program. Funding SciSIP
    research is fundamental to identifying processes by which investments
    in research are transformed into social and economic outcomes, and
    providing a more effective evaluation of the ``return'' on scientific
    investments.
        The Biological Sciences Directorate at NSF also provides support
    for research psychologists who ask questions about the very principles
    and mechanisms that govern life at the level of the genome and cell, or
    at the level of a whole individual, family or species. In previous
    testimony, APA has expressed concern about diminishing support for key
    behavioral research programs within this Directorate, most notably
    those focused on learning and cognition. NSF recognizes the importance
    of learning and cognition to many branches of science already, and
    supports Foundation-wide initiatives and individual research projects
    that seek to understand the neural or genetic mechanisms by which
    learning occurs, that use learning as an assay for the effects of
    environmental change on a biological system, that construct and
    evaluate artificial learning systems, that conceptualize the role of
    learning in biodiversity and evolution and that apply learning
    principles to education and workforce challenges.
        However, we hope that NSF's focus on transformational science will
    continue to recognize that behavior links everything from molecular
    biology to ecology because in a sense behavior is the ultimate genetic
    phenotype. Animals behave to eat, defend and reproduce, so an
    understanding of how the molecular processes within and beyond the
    central nervous system lead to behavior and how behavior serves an
    adaptive function seems essential to integrating biology across levels.
    Within the field of animal behavior and cognition there are clear
    demonstrations that this integration is occurring. For example,
    individual differences in gene expression can now be linked to
    individual differences in memory, attention, decision making,
    individual adaptation and fitness. The opportunity for understanding
    individual differences is unprecedented.

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                Behavioral Research is Critical for Space Exploration and
                        Air Safety
        Over the last 20 years, the NASA research budget has gone down
    steadily, with space exploration expanding at about the same rate. The
    result is an increasing gap in life sciences and human factors
    knowledge--knowledge that is critical for successful missions and for
    improving both the safety and efficiency of our current and future
    aerospace systems. Longer space missions place increasing demands on
    psychological health and performance in space. Psychological scientists
    are meeting these challenges head on by extending the information
    management capacity of individuals through computational systems--
    systems that can sense when the user is overloaded, or determine what
    needs to be done next and automatically adapt. Such systems improve
    human decision-making and allow humans to function in extremely
    challenging environments, such as space flight. The need for science-
    based practical principles to enhance systems, interfaces, team
    dynamics, decision-making, training, and psychological health continues
    to grow, but with a diminishing research budget, NASA behavioral
    scientists are ill equipped to take on this crucial task.
        In 2005, Congress endorsed the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE)
    to send humans to the moon and then to Mars. An understanding of human
    performance in space is critical for VSE, and the ability to measure
    and predict human performance through all mission phases enhances
    mission safety and mission success. APA urges NASA to prioritize life
    sciences and human aeronautics research and to restore its support for
    these programs to a level commensurate with other NASA programs.
        In the recently passed America COMPETES Act, NASA is directed to
    increase funding for basic STEM research to boost competitiveness and
    innovation. APA urges the Subcommittee to explicitly include social
    sciences in the STEM definition for NASA, consistent with the
    definition authorized in the America COMPETES Act in the section on
    NSF.
        In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress authorized
    $18,686,300,000 for fiscal year 2008. The actual allocation for fiscal
    year 2008 shortchanged the agency by over $1 billion. At $17.6 billion,
    the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request again shortchanges the
    agency and fails even to keep pace with inflation. APA requests that
    NASA's budget be at least $18.3 billion in order for the agency to
    succeed in moving forward with the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE)
    while also sustaining its non-Exploration missions. In order to
    preserve the integrity of the agency's missions, APA further urges
    Congress to block transfer authority between budget accounts.
                Human Research Program
        Over the past several years, support for programs in the life
    sciences has diminished significantly, despite a renewed commitment in
    2005 to extend human presence in space, and an unprecedented interest
    in behavioral research. Now, what remains of the Human Research Program
    is budgeted at $152 million, an increase of just 3.4 percent over
    fiscal year 2008. Human research must be securely and adequately funded
    and considered an integral component of space mission planning. A
    successful overall behavioral health program will require a broad
    perspective, multiple convergent research strategies, and a variety of
    settings, including space itself. APA therefore requests that NASA's
    budget for Advanced Capabilities, which houses the Human Research
    Program, be increased to the fiscal year 2008 level of $671 million.
                Aviation Safety
        Aeronautics research (including human factors) has long been a
    cornerstone of NASA. APA applauds NASA Ames Research Center for its
    historic attention to human factors research but continued cuts to
    aeronautics programming and a recent reorganization of the Aeronautics
    Research Mission Directorate threaten to dismantle this once world-
    class center for human factors research. The Aeronautics Research
    Mission has been re-oriented to emphasize disciplines such as
    aerodynamics over human performance and operational issues. Further,
    the agency's fiscal year 2008 allocation diminished the spending power
    of the aeronautics program by 40 percent compared to 2004, forcing NASA
    centers to cut jobs and university grants in aeronautics research,
    especially in the area of human performance and aviation safety. NASA's
    continual underfunding of aeronautics research also poses a significant
    threat to the Next Generation's (NextGen) schedule and budget. APA
    therefore recommends that Congress restore NASA's Aeronautics budget to
    at least the fiscal year 2006 level of $594 million.
    Department of Justice--National Institute of Justice
        Behavioral and social science research is also essential to
    improving the criminal justice system. The National Institute of
    Justice (NIJ) is the research, development, and evaluation arm of the
    Department of Justice. It funds research in a range of scientific
    disciplines, including behavioral and social science research aimed at
    identifying evidence-based solutions for reducing crime and increasing
    public safety. The Administration has proposed flat funding for NIJ in
    fiscal year 2009 for a total of $34.7 million, equal to its fiscal year
    2008 level and a dramatic 32 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2007
    level of $54.3 million. APA strongly urges the Committee to reverse
    this trend of budgetary neglect for NIJ and recommends providing $50
    million in fiscal year 2009 for NIJ programs.
                                     ______

        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 2009 Testimony
        GLIFWC requests that Congress: (1) fund the TRGP at $31,065,000 in
    fiscal year 2009 (the same level as fiscal year 2007 enacted and
    $16,025,000 more than fiscal year 2008 enacted), (2) maintain the
    Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP) as a distinct program within the
    DOJ COPS Office of Justice Programs, and (3) ensure that special
    conservation agencies remain eligible, unlike in fiscal year 2006.
    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 24 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 United States/
    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 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. In
    fact, the role of GLIFWC's officers in these networks was further
    legitimized in 2007 by the passage of Wisconsin Act 27. This law
    affords GLIFWC wardens the same statutory safeguards and protections
    that are afforded to their DNR counterparts. GLIFWC wardens will now
    have access to the criminal history database and other information to
    identify whom they are encountering in the field so that they can
    determine whether they are about to face a fugitive or some other
    dangerous individual.

    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 have provided a critical foundation
    for achieving these goals. Significant accomplishments with Tribal
    Resources Grant Program funds include:
        Increased Versatility and Homeland Security on Superior.--In 2007
    GLIFWC used COPS funding to obtain a 22 foot boat to expand patrol
    capabilities and coverage on Lake Superior. This boat also provides
    greater versatility than GLIFWC's larger patrol boat to access bays and
    harbors in the Lake. The boat will be stationed in Marquette for use in
    both the 1836 and 1842 ceded territories in Lake Superior, as well as
    to provide increased emergency response, when needed.
        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
    have carried First Responder kits and portable defibrillators during
    their patrol of around 275,000 miles per year 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 the 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
    1836, 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,
    providing critical outreach to tribal youth.
        Hire, Train and Equip Three Additional Officers.--Funding was
    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.
    As required by the program, GLIFWC has absorbed the salary costs
    related to sustaining those positions, however COPS funding is needed
    now more than ever to sustain the other components of program related
    to training and equipment.
        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. In addition, a consent decree
    signed in 2007 will govern the exercise of treaty rights in inland
    portions of the 1836 ceded territory in Michigan, where one of GLIFWC's
    member tribes exercises treaty rights.
        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 follow:
      --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).
      --Assistance in evacuating residents after a chemical plant explosion
            (Burnett County, Wisconsin).
      --Organizing and participating 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).
        In 2008, GLIFWC proposes to utilize DOJ TRGP funding for training
    and equipment to: (1) recognize, secure and respond appropriately to
    homeland security threats, (2) improve response to incidents that
    trigger joint law enforcement activities such as ``incident command
    center'' protocols and training, and (3) improve community awareness
    through state certified safety classes (hunter safety, boater safety,
    ATV safety and snowmobile safety). Simply put, supporting GLIFWC's
    officers will not only assist GLIFWC in meeting its obligations to
    enforce tribal off-reservation codes, but it will enhance
    intergovernmental efforts to protect public safety and welfare
    throughout the region in the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
    Michigan. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program provides essential
    funding for equipment and training to support GLIFWC's cooperative
    conservation, law enforcement, and emergency response activities. We
    ask Congress to support increased funding for this program.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Killdeer Mountain Manufacturing

        On behalf of Killdeer Mountain Manufacturing, manufacturer of
    aerospace assemblies, located in Killdeer, Halliday, Hettinger, and
    Dickinson, North Dakota, I would like to thank the Committee for
    allowing our organization to submit this testimony for the record. I am
    writing to respectfully request that the Hollings Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership program be provided the authorized $122 million
    within the fiscal year 2009 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Bill. This requested level of funding for 2009
    was provided for in the recently enacted America COMPETES Act. As you
    know, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a
    program within the Department of Commerce, National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, a program authorized to improve
    competitiveness of America's manufacturing community.
        The MEP is one of the most successful partnerships in the country.
    In addition to public support, a value proposition to improve
    manufacturer's global competitiveness is supported by those companies
    who receive benefit. In North Dakota, the Dakota MEP provides
    assistance to companies in continuous improvement, innovation,
    strategic growth, technology and workforce development--all major needs
    of our companies. Our company is currently working on a nationally
    recognized Lean Enterprise Certification Program with the assistance of
    Dakota MEP.
        As a Dakota MEP Director, I would also like to report that the
    average company benefits and impacts realized in the Dakota MEP
    improvement work with manufacturers mirrors the national MEP average at
    $1.4 million per engagement. These benefits have been realized by
    manufacturers who've partnered with Dakota MEP over the past six years.
        Manufacturing continues to diversify and grow the economies of the
    Dakotas. It currently is 10 percent of the gross state product in North
    Dakota and 11 percent in South Dakota. The industry has nearly 1,900
    firms employing 69,000 in the Dakotas exporting over $2 billion.
    Manufacturing brings new wealth to our country, our states and
    communities which, in turn, generate other economic activity and
    opportunities.
        Manufacturing must remain one of our country's economic strengths
    and the MEP is an invaluable program to help the industry better
    compete. Without unwavering strong federal support, the MEP will be
    unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small
    manufacturers' increasing needs. At a time when our economic strength
    and global competitiveness are national priorities, the MEP continues
    to be a wise investment. We respectfully request that you appropriate
    $122 million for the MEP in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Marine Laboratories

        On behalf of the National Association of Marine Laboratories I am
    pleased to submit this statement for the official record in strong
    support of the research and education programs under the subcommittee's
    jurisdiction that play a vital role in the ocean, coastal, and Great
    Lakes research and education enterprise. I will focus my remarks on
    four key areas: federal support for extramural ocean, coastal and Great
    Lakes research; the next generation of ocean infrastructure; U.S.
    innovation and competitiveness through investment in the marine
    sciences; and ocean education, literacy, diversity and workforce
    development.
        The National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) is a
    nonprofit organization of about 100 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

        NAML strongly urges the Subcommittee to maintain and strengthen its
    support for cutting-edge ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and
    education across the federal funding agencies within its jurisdiction.
        The marine sciences are inherently interdisciplinary, push the
    envelope in terms of technology development, test the boundaries of our
    data collection and analysis systems, and offer an effective training
    ground for future scientists and engineers. NAML believes that
    competitive, merit-based research support by all relevant federal
    agencies is essential to the overall progress of coastal, ocean and
    Great Lakes science and education. Specifically, NAML calls on the
    Subcommittee in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill to support the
    research and education programs of the National Science Foundation, the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration one of its highest priorities.
    National Science Foundation (NSF)
        NSF provides vital support for basic research and education which
    enhances public understanding of the Nation's oceans, coastal areas,
    and the Great Lakes and strengthens the long-term economic
    competitiveness and national security of our country. NSF support for
    cutting edge research, cyberinfrastructure, as well as more traditional
    instrumentation and infrastructure is essential for the health of the
    Nation's research enterprise. NSF also plays a large role in supporting
    education and training for the next generation of scientists and
    engineers and enhancing diversity by attracting and retaining women and
    minorities. Marine labs contribute significantly to this objective
    through the research and education programming conducted with NSF
    support. NAML is supportive of proposals from the Administration ($6.9
    billion request for fiscal year 2009) and the Congress (via the America
    COMPETES Act) to substantially increase NSF support for fiscal year
    2009 and urges that in the provision of such resources, they be
    distributed in a balanced way to include all of the NSF directorates
    consistent with similar guidance provided in the fiscal year 2008
    appropriations conference report.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
        NOAA is a critical player in ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
    research and education and many NAML labs are co-located with, or
    linked to, NOAA laboratories. Through its partnerships with marine labs
    and universities, NOAA has access to world-class expertise and unique
    research facilities. In addition, by partnering with the external
    research and education community, NOAA can leverage funds and
    facilitate multi-institution cooperation, all for the purpose of
    promoting the very best science. NAML urges the Subcommittee to
    recognize the value of NOAA by funding the agency at a budget of $4.5
    billion for fiscal year 2009, as supported by the Friends of NOAA
    Coalition. In addition, we call on the Subcommittee to emphasize NOAA's
    key extramural research and education programs which assist NOAA in
    addressing its mission. These programs include: the National Sea Grant
    College Program, the National Undersea Research Program, Ocean
    Exploration and Research, the National Estuarine Research Reserve
    System, the Competitive Research Program within NOAA's Climate Program
    Office, the Integrated Ocean Observing System, Oceans and Human Health,
    Coastal Zone Management, Office of Education and the various joint and
    cooperative institutes. In addition, NOAA supports important research
    in aquaculture and invasive species.
        In 2007, NOAA released a comprehensive five year research plan \1\
    that highlights the linkage between NOAA research and the Nation's
    economic competitiveness. A healthy NOAA budget coupled with solid
    partnerships with the extramural research and education communities
    will only strengthen NOAA's research and education capabilities and
    ultimately make our nation safer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Research in NOAA: Toward Understanding and Predicting Earth's
    Environment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June
    2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
        Budgets for NASA earth and space science have declined in recent
    years despite fervent calls from the community to protect science
    funding at the agency. The National Academy of Sciences released a
    report in 2007 \2\ calling on NASA to ``renew its investment in Earth
    observing systems and restore its leadership in Earth science and
    applications.'' NAML is not alone in its contention that this nation is
    in need of a balanced investment in NASA that will maintain a strong
    and vibrant earth and space science enterprise. NASA's support for
    earth observations and research is vital in helping us better
    understand our own planet. We are encouraged that the Administration
    has called for Earth and Space science increases in its fiscal year
    2009 budget request. NAML urges the Subcommittee to renew its
    investment in the NASA Earth Science budget for fiscal year 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    NEXT GENERATION OF OCEAN INFRASTRUCTURE

        In addition to program support for research at the various federal
    funding agencies, support for infrastructure and instrumentation--
    including long term planning for the next generation of
    infrastructure--is critical to the operation of marine labs. NSF in
    particular provides important support for basic laboratory facilities,
    instrumentation, support systems, computing and related
    cyberinfrastructure, and ship access through the important Major
    Research Instrumentation (MRI) and the Field Stations and Marine
    Laboratories (FSML) programs. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's
    report \3\ made several recommendations about the need for development
    and enhancement of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research
    infrastructure. NAML recognizes the need for infrastructure investment
    at all scales, from traditional infrastructure--such as marine
    laboratories, ships, observation systems, satellites--to next
    generation infrastructure and technology like genomics, proteomics,
    robotics, nanotechnology, and other advanced computational approaches.
    As federal research budgets grow, so too must support for critical
    infrastructure required to effectively implement research and
    education. We are hindering our brightest scientific minds by denying
    them the proper infrastructure needed to support their research. NAML
    urges the Subcommittee to recognize the importance of sustained support
    for infrastructure across the federal research agencies and provide
    commensurate funding for fiscal year 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy, April 20, 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR U.S. INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH
                       INVESTMENT IN THE MARINE SCIENCES

        NAML notes that the Federal government has targeted the ``physical
    sciences'' for funding increases in recent years, despite the outcome
    of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process. The Congress, through
    enactment of the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-069), recognized
    that the physical sciences did not only refer to science coming out of
    the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of
    Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as
    defined by the Administration. In addition to these agencies the
    COMPETES Act acknowledged the role that many Federal agencies--such as
    NOAA and NASA--play in U.S. innovation and competitiveness. For fiscal
    year 2009, NAML urges the Subcommittee to fund all of the ``physical
    science'' agencies, including NSF, NOAA, and NASA, at levels that will
    help the nation keep pace on the global stage.

         OCEAN EDUCATION, LITERACY, DIVERSITY AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

        NAML believes that an informed, engaged and ocean literate populace
    is critical for the economic, environmental health of our planet and to
    the quality of life of all Americans. NAML encourages the federal
    government to strengthen its commitment to enhancing ocean, coastal and
    Great Lakes education, literacy, diversity and workforce development.
        In early 2008 NAML developed a whitepaper \4\ addressing the ocean
    education mission at NOAA and calling on NOAA to be a strong
    contributor to the implementation of the recommendations made within
    the 2006 Conference on Ocean Literacy (CoOL) report \5\. The Conference
    on Ocean Literacy was a watershed event that brought together for the
    first time all of the Federal entities overseeing ocean education and
    literacy. Its subsequent report issued key recommendations for
    fostering an ocean-literate society and increasing ocean workforce
    diversity. NAML looks forward to working with NOAA, as well as other
    federal agencies with ocean education missions, in implementing the
    report's recommendations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Ocean Literate America: A Whitepaper in Support of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Ocean Education Plan, National
    Association of Marine Laboratories, February 2008.
        \5\ Conference on Ocean Literacy Report, Washington, D.C., June 7-
    8, 2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 generate the very best knowledge investment is
    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 labs work closely with many programs throughout the
    Federal government to produce a more ocean-literate populace. These
    include the Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence program
    (COSEE) and the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation
    program at NSF, and the Office of Education and National Sea Grant
    College Program within NOAA. Not only do marine labs serve as excellent
    training grounds for experiential ocean education, they 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 underrepresented groups. At
    marine laboratories, students achieve a greater understanding of the
    oceans and coastal ecosystems and take with them a sense of stewardship
    for these important environments. Given the interdisciplinary nature of
    the ocean sciences, a continued interagency approach will be needed by
    the Federal government to foster a truly ocean-literate populace. NAML
    urges the Subcommittee to provide priority funding for the science
    education programs noted above for fiscal year 2009.
        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 2009 appropriations process.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
                          Experimental Biology (FASEB)

    Mission
        Our nation's ability to remain competitive in the global economy
    depends on its capacity to develop new knowledge, train scientists, and
    provide resources that fuel discovery and innovation. Funding for the
    National Science Foundation's (NSF) scientific research and education
    programs is essential to the fulfillment of these goals.
        NSF's mission is ``to promote the progress of science; to advance
    the national health, prosperity, and welfare; [and] to secure the
    national defense.'' \1\ Although NSF receives less than 5 percent of
    the federal research and development (R&D) budget, it has a leading
    role in advancing U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics
    (STEM). In addition to providing necessary support for large scale
    research facilities, NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all
    federally-sponsored basic research \2\ and at least two-thirds of all
    federally-sponsored non-medical basic research at America's colleges
    and universities.\3\ Each year, this funding results in grants to more
    than 200,000 scientists, teachers and student researchers for cutting-
    edge projects at thousands of institutions across the country. NSF is
    also a major force in science education and training. The agency
    supports education research and funds initiatives to prepare teachers,
    develop curricula, and engage students in scientific activities that
    are critical for strengthening our scientific workforce. NSF's support
    of science and education and its emphasis on integrating research and
    education make it unique among federal research sponsors; its broad
    approach stimulates the flow of ideas across scientific boundaries and
    brings new insight to bear on perplexing research questions. NSF's
    pioneering research investments have advanced the frontier of science
    and have led to the development of marketable technologies, processes
    and methods.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/about/.
    Accessed September 17, 2007.
        \2\ Ibid.
        \3\ AAAS Report XXXII: Research and Development Fiscal Year 2008.
    (2007) American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington,
    DC.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A recent National Academies report warns that as other countries
    make R&D spending a top priority, the scientific and technological
    building blocks that are critical to U.S. economic leadership are
    eroding.\4\ Expressing a similar sentiment, the U.S. Office of Science
    and Technology Policy stated that ``keeping our competitive edge in the
    world economy requires policies that lay the ground work for continued
    leadership in innovation, exploration, and ingenuity.'' \5\ Although
    Congress recognized NSF's contribution to the science and technology
    enterprise when it authorized a doubling of the agency's budget by
    2007, NSF's budget remains far below the amount the NSF Authorization
    Act of 2002 specified.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ National Academies of Science. (2007) Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
    Future. Washington, DC.
        \5\ Domestic Policy Council. (2006) American Competitiveness
    Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation. Office of Science and
    Technology Policy. Washington, DC.
        \6\ Public Law 107-368. (December 2002) National Science Foundation
    Authorization Act of 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Enactment of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
    Promote Excellence in Technology, Science, and Education (COMPETES) Act
    \7\ in 2007 renews U.S. commitment to science and technology and puts
    NSF on a path to double its budget by 2015, permitting the agency to
    expand its support for scientific research and education and training
    programs. These critical investments in NSF will ensure that the United
    States remains at the forefront of scientific discovery and
    technological innovation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ H.R. 2272. (August 2007) America Creating Opportunities to
    Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Science, and Education
    (COMPETES).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Select Accomplishments in Research and Education
        Research that NSF funds traverses the sciences, captures the
    imagination, and improves our quality of life. A few highlights of
    innovative research and education projects NSF supports follow.
                Nanotechnology
        Nanotechnology is a multidisciplinary field in which scientists
    design and build objects and even machines with the dimensions of
    individual atoms and molecules. This new research area is
    revolutionizing everything from computers to health care, and NSF is
    leading the charge.
      --Developing Medical Nanosensors.--Scientists have developed nanosize
            chemical sensors that can detect glucose in human tissue. This
            research is paving the way for the development of a class of
            biosensors that could improve the way diabetics monitor blood
            sugar and facilitate tracking a variety of other molecules,
            such as hormones, cholesterol and drugs.
      --Disrupting Cancer Development.--Scientists have found they can use
            antisense DNA to disrupt cells' production of cancer-causing
            proteins; attaching gold nanoparticles to antisense strands
            enhances their ability to disrupt the production of these
            proteins.
                High-End Computing and Advanced Networking
        Computational research that NSF funds is driving discovery in
    critical scientific fields. High-end computing and advanced networking
    is enabling scientists to better understand biological systems and
    apply new knowledge to pressing health, environmental and social
    concerns.
      --Developing HIV Drugs.--Scientists are harnessing the power of
            super-computers to model molecular structure and movement.
            Structural models of enzymes that permit HIV to survive and
            proliferate have guided the development of new drugs to target
            these essential proteins.
      --Networking Biodiversity Data.--The Global Biodiversity Information
            Facility has created a worldwide network of biodiversity data,
            including genetic and ecological data, on the earth's myriad
            species. This information is useful in predicting the spread of
            disease, identifying the sources of disease-resistant crop
            genes, and tracking the spread of invasive species.
                Materials Science and Engineering
        Nature produces an array of materials with structural properties
    that the materials scientists create in labs cannot rival. Basic
    research on the structures of these materials is helping engineers
    develop new products with medical and industrial applications.
      --Developing Artificial Joints and Limbs.--Basic research on the
            biology of the unique cartilaginous skeletons of sharks may
            help researchers design biological materials that are suitable
            for the development of artificial joints and limbs.
      --Medical Uses of Collagen.--Researchers have discovered ways to
            modify collagens that may help block the formation of scar
            tissue, control the growth of blood vessels in tissues for
            implantation, and develop better infection-fighting bandages.
                Basic Physiological Processes
        Though it may not be evident at first glance, humans have a fair
    amount in common with species as diverse as fungi, frogs and bears. Due
    to similarities at the genetic, cellular and physiological levels,
    studying these and other organisms yields insight into human health and
    disease. NSF support for this basic scientific research paves the way
    for human medical advances.
      --Advancing Organ Transplant Technology.--Researchers discovered that
            certain frogs produce an ``antifreeze'' that prevents cell
            damage in frigid temperatures. As a result, these frogs can
            survive for months in freezing weather even though their major
            organs have come to a practical halt. Research in this area may
            lead to technologies that permit longer preservation of human
            organs and, therefore, improve transplantation success rates.
      --Using Baker's Yeast to Study HIV.--Yeast cells are structurally
            similar to human cells and contain harmless retrovirus-like
            elements that scientists use to model HIV. A mechanism
            scientists discovered in these retrovirus-like elements may be
            the missing link to retrovirus replication and may provide a
            new target for the development of HIV drugs.
                Science Education and Training
        The National Science Foundation supports the nation's STEM
    infrastructure by contributing to science education. NSF programs are
    cultivating the next generation of scientists and engineers by
    developing research curricula, engaging K-12 and undergraduate students
    in science, providing support for graduate and postdoctoral
    researchers, and improving teacher training.
      --Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program.--This program supports
            educational partnerships between universities, local school
            systems, businesses, and informal science organizations. Early
            analyses of this initiative demonstrate that participating
            students show improvements in math and science proficiency.
      --Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion
            (STEP) Program.--The STEP program aims to increase the number
            of students who obtain undergraduate degrees in STEM
            disciplines through grant support to academic institutions.
            With STEP funding, colleges and universities have developed
            programs to engage women and minorities in science, provide
            students with research opportunities, and introduce them to
            scientific careers.
      --Integrated Graduate Education Research and Training (IGERT)
            Program.--This initiative supports 125 doctoral degree programs
            that foster interdisciplinary training in emerging scientific
            domains. IGERT trainees have produced important scientific and
            technological breakthroughs, which include a handheld imaging
            device that can detect breast tumors and ``bio-transformable''
            materials doctors can implant in the body to deliver drugs or
            open blood vessels.

    Investing in the Future
        NSF's strategic plan for the future \8\ outlines the agency's
    approach to building our nation's research capacity. By combining
    support for basic research, education, and training with investments in
    emerging areas of scientific interest and need, NSF will ensure that
    the United States has the infrastructure and talent to maintain its
    role as a leader in science and technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ National Science Foundation (2006). Investing in America's
    Future: FY 2006-2011. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0648/NSF-06-
    48.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Fundamental and Transformational Research
        NSF will continue to support both transformational R&D and the
    basic science on which it depends. The agency is emphasizing
    interdisciplinary investigation in areas such as the neural bases of
    behavior, energy and climate research, and nanomaterial safety. Through
    investments in computer science and mathematics, NSF will advance
    research in all STEM disciplines and enhance our ability to make future
    discoveries.
                Systems Biology
        Support for NSF is critical to advancing new areas of biological
    discovery such as systems biology. NSF has led this emerging field,
    which unites biologists, chemists, engineers, mathematicians and
    physicists. Systems biologists are developing a better understanding of
    living systems and their interactions with the non-living world, which
    is essential to understanding the global impact of phenomena such as
    climate change.
                Education and Training
        By funding initiatives such as MSP, STEP and IGERT, NSF will
    continue to foster innovative approaches to science education. NSF's
    focus on integrating research and education; bridging gaps between K-
    12, undergraduate science and technical education; and expanding
    partnerships between academia and industry will broaden interest and
    participation in science careers.

    Recommendation
        If we are to continue to lead the world in innovation and prepare
    for future prosperity, funding for NSF is essential. As NSF Director
    Arden Bement, Jr. has said, ``America's sustained economic prosperity
    is based on technological innovation made possible, in large part, by
    fundamental science and engineering research. Innovation and technology
    are the engines of the American economy, and advances in science and
    engineering provide the fuel.'' \9\ Without a greater commitment to
    NSF, our country faces the grave possibility of losing its global
    dominance in science and technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director National Science Foundation.
    (March 29, 2006) Testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and
    Competitiveness. http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/bement-032906.pdf.
    Accessed on September 17, 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In keeping with the America COMPETES Act of 2007, FASEB recommends
    an appropriation of $7.33 billion for the National Science Foundation
    in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians

        On behalf of the tribal nations of the National Congress of
    American Indians (NCAI), the Nation's oldest and largest organization
    of tribal governments, we are pleased to present our recommendations on
    the Administration's fiscal year 2009 budget for Indian programs.
    Recommendations
        Priority 1.--Reject consolidation of DOJ programs and restore
    funding to fiscal year 2002 levels. Top three priorities at DOJ: COPS
    $35 million, Tribal Courts $15 million, Tribal Prison Construction $35
    million.

                                                  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             2009
                                                                                                          (Restored
                                                                      2006         2007         2008      to fiscal
                                                                    enacted      enacted      Omnibus     year 2002
                                                                                                           Levels)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indian Assistance:
        Tribal Prison Construction..............................        9,000        9,000        8,630       35,000
        Indian Tribal Courts Program............................        8,000        8,000        8,630       15,000
        Alcohol and Substance Abuse.............................        5,000        5,000        5,180        5,000
    Community Oriented Policing Services: Tribal Law Enforce-          14,808       15,000       15,040       35,000
     ment.......................................................
    Title V--Incentive Grants: Tribal Youth.....................       10,000       10,000       14,100       14,100
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Priority 2.--Fully fund Violence Against Women Act programs;
    Research on violence against Native women; and the National Tribal Sex
    Offender and Order of Protection Registry.

                                                          VAWA
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             2009
                                                                                                          (Restored
                                                                      2006         2007         2008      to fiscal
                                                                    enacted      enacted      Omnibus     year 2002
                                                                                                           Levels)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research on violence against Native women...................  ...........  ...........          940        1,000
    National Tribal Registry....................................  ...........  ...........          940        1,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Priority 3.--Department of Commerce, Office of Native American
    Business Development, $3 million.

    Background
        The administration of justice in Indian Country is clearly in
    crisis.\1\ Because of the unique legal and political status of Indian
    tribes within the United States, the federal government has a
    responsibility to assist tribes in safeguarding Native people from
    crime. Despite this responsibility, law enforcement and criminal
    justice services in Indian Country are chronically underfunded. In
    October 1997, the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
    Enforcement Improvements issued its final report to the Attorney
    General and the Secretary of the Interior. The report concluded that
    ``there is a public safety crisis in Indian Country,'' and ``the single
    most glaring problem is a lack of adequate resources in Indian
    Country.'' \2\ In the wake of this report, funding for tribal justice
    systems was increased for several years. Ten years later, however,
    funding levels have been cut and law enforcement and justice systems in
    Indian Country are once again operating without the resources they
    need. As a result, tribal communities continue to suffer crisis levels
    of crime.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Michael Riley, Lawless Lands, Denver Post (Nov. 11-14, 2007).
        \2\ Report of the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
    Enforcement Improvements (1997), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/otj/
    icredact.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that Native Americans
    ``experience an estimated 1 violent crime for every 10 residents age 12
    or older.'' \3\ Native Americans are the victims of violent crime twice
    as often as African Americans, two and half times as often as whites,
    and four and a half times as often as Asian Americans.\4\ Two specific
    areas of crime in Indian Country deserve particular mention: domestic
    violence and drug-related crime.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Steven W. Perry, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of
    Justice, ``American Indians and Crime: A BJS Statistical Profile,''
    1992-2002, at iv (2004) [hereinafter American Indians and Crime 1992-
    2002], available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/aic02.pdf.
        \4\ Id. at 5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Violence against Women.--Nearly every study on the rate of sexual
    assault in the last ten years that has included race or ethnicity as a
    factor has concluded that American Native American women suffer a rate
    of sexual violence at least 2 to 3 times higher than any other group of
    women in the United States.\5\ In 2000, the National Violence Against
    Women Survey concluded that more than 1 in 3 Native women will be raped
    in their lifetime.\6\ These statistics demonstrate that violence
    against Indian women has reached crisis proportions. Full funding for
    the programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act will bring
    much needed resources to tribal governments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Amnesty International, Maze of Injustice: The Failure to
    Protect Indigenous Women From Sexual Violence in the United States
    (2007); Lawrence A. Greenfeld & and Steven K. Smith, Bureau of Justice
    Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, ``American Indians and Crime,'' p.
    3, table 3 (Feb. 1999), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
    abstract/aic.htm.
        \6\ Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, National Inst. of Justice,
    U.S. Dep't of Justice, ``Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and
    Consequences of Violence Against Women,'' p. 23 (2000), available at
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Methamphetamines.--Nationally Native Americans have the highest
    rates of methamphetamine abuse.\7\ On some reservations the reported
    rate of meth abuse has been as high as 30 percent.\8\ The Bureau of
    Indian Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services surveyed tribes with
    whom they work closely on law enforcement, 74 percent of tribes
    indicated that meth is the drug that poses the greatest threat to their
    community.\9\ Meth causes dramatic increases in violent crime, suicide,
    and child neglect. An informal survey of the seven FBI offices located
    primarily in Indian country estimated that approximately 40 percent to
    50 percent of violent crime cases investigated in Indian country
    involve meth.\10\ In addition, the National Indian Child Welfare
    Association estimates that 80-85 percent of the Indian families in
    child welfare systems have drug or alcohol abuse issues.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Services Administration, ``Methamphetamine Use, Abuse, and Dependence:
    2002, 2003, and 2004. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health
    Report,'' (Sept. 16, 2005).
        \8\ Donna Vigil, Director, Division of Health Programs, White
    Mountain Apache Tribe, Oral testimony offered to the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs Hearing on Indian Youth Suicide (May 17,
    2006).
        \9\ The New Mexico Investigative Support Center, ``Bureau of Indian
    Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services, National Methamphetamine
    Initiative Survey,'' p. 4 (2006) [hereinafter National Methamphetamine
    Initiative Survey], available at http://www.ncai.org/ncai/Meth/
    BIA_MethSurvey.pdf.
        \10\ FBI Indian Country Unit Presentation, The Federal/Tribal Meth
    Summit sponsored by the Department of Justice, Attorney General's
    Advisory Committee, Native American Issues Subcommittee of United
    States Attorneys (Oct. 13, 2005).
        \11\ Connie Bear King, Testimony of the National Indian Child
    Welfare Association before the Senate Finance Committee regarding
    Keeping America's Promise: Health Care And Child Welfare For Native
    Americans (March 22, 2007), available at http://www.senate.gov/
    finance/hearings/testimony/2007test/032207testcbk.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In order to address the profound needs in many tribal communities,
    additional law enforcement and criminal justice resources are badly
    needed. The most telling indicators of the under-resourcing of public
    safety services in Indian Country are the chronic law enforcement
    staffing deficit, the over-burdened tribal courts, and the deplorable
    conditions of tribal detention facilities.
        Law Enforcement Staffing.--More than 200 tribal police departments,
    ranging from small departments with only two officers to those with
    more than 200 officers, help to maintain public safety in Indian
    Country. Current funding for tribal law enforcement and first
    responders lags well behind that for non-tribal law enforcement. The
    Bureau of Indian Affairs conducted an analysis of law enforcement
    staffing in Indian Country in 2006, and found that Indian Country has
    2,555 law enforcement officers, yet needs a total of 4,409, resulting
    in a gap of 1,854 officers, or a 42 percent unmet staffing need.
    According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, cities like Baltimore,
    Detroit, and Washington have police-to-citizen ratios of 3.9 to 6.6
    officers per 1,000 residents. On the other hand, virtually no tribal
    police department has more than 2 officers per 1,000 residents.
    Increased funding for tribes under the COPS program will help to close
    this gap.
        Tribal Courts.--Tribal judicial systems, the primary and most
    appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities,
    frequently are overburdened due to lack of federal funding. Tribal
    courts are overwhelmed with hundreds of serious cases declined by U.S.
    attorneys as well as increasing meth and drug crimes. Tribal courts
    have been level funded for at least the last five years. Increased
    funding for tribal courts will ensure that tribal justice systems are
    equipped to handle their increasing case load.
        Detention Facilities.--Well functioning detention centers for
    tribal members both accused and convicted of crimes are of great
    importance to criminal justice in Indian Country. Detention centers in
    Indian Country often do not meet minimum acceptable standards for
    prisons: frequently basic maintenance does not occur, major sanitation
    concerns exist, safety and security are inadequate, resources for
    juveniles do not exist, funding for rehabilitation and re-entry
    programs is almost non-existent, health care services for inmates are
    lacking, and there is very little accountability for fixing the
    problems that plague tribal detention centers.\12\ As such, the safety
    of tribal members who are incarcerated is often jeopardized and the
    safety of tribal members in the community is put at risk because
    prisoners are offered few basic services and quickly released due to
    over-crowding. Increased funding for the construction of tribal
    detention facilities is imperative.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector
    General, ``Neither Safe Nor Secure: An Assessment of Indian country
    Detention Facilities,'' P. 1-6 (2004), available at http://
    www.doioig.gov/upload/IndianCountryDetentionFinal%20Report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Juvenile Justice.--A critical piece of law enforcement is juvenile
    detention facilities and juvenile rehabilitation and treatment
    programs. Many tribes have no place to house juvenile offenders and are
    required to shoulder the cost of transportation and bed rental in order
    to send their youth to another jurisdiction--often far from their
    communities. In addition, tribes have no ongoing source of funds for
    non-detention programs for youth. Research on juvenile justice has
    shown that detention is the most expensive and often the least
    effective way to deal with young offenders; it should be the last
    resort. However, without the resources to support alternatives to
    detention, tribes have few options for addressing juvenile crime.
    Increased funding for the Tribal Youth Program will allow tribes to
    begin to address this need.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute

        On behalf of Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), I wish
    to thank the members of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit
    written testimony on fiscal year 2009 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) appropriations. MCBI supports funding increases
    to the President's fiscal year 2009 budget for several significant NOAA
    conservation programs and activities as follows: $2 million for
    Hawaiian monk seal recovery; $5.5 million for the Deep Sea Coral
    Research and Technology Program; $30 million for the National Marine
    Sanctuaries Program; and $2.9 million for the Marine Protected Areas
    Program.
        MCBI is a national, nonprofit environmental organization whose
    mission is to advance the science of marine conservation biology and
    secure protection for ocean ecosystems. Our headquarters are in
    Bellevue, Washington; we also have offices in Hawaii, 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 2009. Our justifications of increases for
    critical conservation programs and activities are as follows:
        The Hawaiian monk seal is one of the most critically endangered
    marine mammals in the world, and is the only U.S. marine mammal species
    whose entire range lies within U.S. jurisdiction. Most Hawaiian monk
    seals reside in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, but
    there is a small important sub-population in the Main Hawaiian Islands.
    Over the last 20 years, the Hawaiian monk seal population has declined
    to approximately 1,200 individuals.
        The Hawaiian monk seal is headed toward extinction unless the
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its partner agencies
    aggressively budget for, and implement the recommendations of the 2007
    recovery plan, which strives to protect and enhance the overall number
    of breeding female seals. This is not an unattainable goal, but it will
    require a variety of concurrent actions and interventions at a
    projected annual cost of approximately $7 million annually over the
    next 5 years. Although this cost may seem high, in comparison, the
    Steller seal lion whose current Western population is approximately
    45,000 has received $55 million in conservation support since 1998,
    while the more critically endangered Hawaiian monk seal has received
    approximately $21 million over the same time period.
        For fiscal year 2009, the President's budget includes an $855,000
    request from NOAA in the monk seal line item. Additionally,
    discretionary funding usually is allocated from other Protected
    Resources line items for seal management. In fiscal year 2008, for
    example, total funding for the seal base program is approximately $2.1
    million. Even at this funding level, research and protection
    interventions in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands have been cut back
    by two-thirds for the summer field season. Furthermore, there are no
    funds requested in fiscal year 2009 for managing seals in the Main
    Hawaiian Islands where human interactions are a significant threat to
    recovery.
        To recover the monk seal, the recovery team is unanimous that the
    recovery plan must be implemented aggressively on a sustained basis. I
    urge the subcommittee to increase seal funding as follows:
      --For fiscal year 2009, MCBI recommends an additional $2 million
            above the President's budget request be added to the monk seal
            line item specifically for recovery plan implementation. $1
            million of this amount is needed for the Pacific Island
            Fisheries Science Center's ongoing field efforts to enhance pup
            and juvenile survival principally in Papahanaumokuakea.
      --Another $1 million is needed for coordinating the seal recovery
            program and crisis intervention actions in the Main Hawaiian
            Islands. Of this $1 million, MCBI recommends $150,000 for a
            Regional Office Coordinator, and $600,000 for six field
            response team leaders who handle day to day interventions to
            protect the 100 or so seals scattered around the Main Islands.
            The remaining $250,000 would go for programs to educate the
            public on appropriate behavior toward seals, prevent seal
            disease, and capture and rehabilitate entangled, abandoned,
            sick or wounded seals for eventual release back into the ocean.
        The Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program is an exciting
    addition to the budget this year. With the recent discovery of
    extensive deep sea coral ecosystems within U.S. waters--ecosystems
    every bit as diverse as many tropical coral reef systems--scientists
    are now challenged to understand these ecosystems to the fullest.
    Unfortunately, many deep sea coral areas are highly susceptible to
    destructive fishing practices, particularly bottom trawling. Under the
    newly reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act of
    2006, NOAA was directed to create a new Deep Sea Coral Research and
    Technology Program under the direction of the National Marine Fisheries
    Service.
        MCBI is pleased to see start-up funding of $1.5 million for the
    program in the fiscal year 2009 NOAA request. However, we would like to
    mention that due to the expensive technology and research vessel time
    required to study and map deep sea corals, an additional $5.5 million
    could be used to fund known research needs:
      --An area of the southeastern U.S. shelf edge and slope spanning
            approximately 23,000 square miles is of top priority for
            mapping and scientific studies for the conservation of deep sea
            corals. With adequate funding, extensive mapping of this
            southeastern shelf can be accomplished with three 30-day
            scientific cruises at approximately $2 million per cruise.
      --In addition, another priority for the Deep Sea Coral Research and
            Technology Program is the development of observer by-catch
            workshops. These workshops will train fisheries observers to
            identify corals brought up by commercial fishers and assess the
            continued impacts that fishing is having on seafloor corals. $1
            million would fund at least three workshops in the regions
            where they are most needed.
        The National Marine Sanctuaries Act authorizes the Secretary of
    Commerce to designate and manage areas of the marine environment for
    resource protection and multiple use. Currently, the National Marine
    Sanctuary Office is responsible for managing the nation's 13 marine
    sanctuaries and the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the
    Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Collectively, these units cover more
    area than the entire National Park System.
        The President has requested $49.8 million in fiscal year 2009 for
    the Sanctuary Program base. This includes $44.4 million for Operations,
    Research and Facilities (ORF) and $5.4 million for Procurement,
    Acquisition, and Construction. This is a decrease of $6.5 million from
    the $56.3 million enacted in fiscal year 2008.
        Given the pressing needs to better protect sanctuary resources,
    MCBI recommends a considerable increase in funding of $23 million in
    fiscal year 2009, to bring the overall program budget to $80 million.
    This would include $60 million for the ORF base and $20 million for
    acquisition and construction. With the proper funding, the Office of
    National Marine Sanctuaries can better execute its responsibilities as
    a leader in ocean management and conservation. Funding will support
    monitoring and enforcement of sanctuaries, ensure public access through
    visitor facilities and programs, and promote scientific research.
        The Marine Protected Areas Program is responsible for the
    implementation of Executive Order 13158, ``Marine Protected Areas''
    (MPAs). MPAs are defined as discrete areas of the ocean that have some
    degree of formal protection under federal, state, tribal and local
    laws. MPAs are essential to maintain biological diversity, protect
    ocean habitats, and effectively manage fish populations. NOAA is tasked
    with undertaking a gap analysis to identify which additional types of
    marine areas should be protected.
        Given the ongoing degradation of our ocean resources, research to
    implement the executive order has moved excessively slowly, in part due
    to insufficient funding. After receiving a start-up budget of $3
    million in fiscal year 2001, the MPA Program budget reached almost $5
    million in fiscal year 2004, and then dropped rather abruptly to $1.5
    million in fiscal year 2007 and 2008. During this period of decline,
    the center lost 70 percent of its staff (i.e., a loss of 18 full and
    part-time employees).
        MCBI recommends $2.9 million be added to the fiscal year 2009
    budget for the MPA Science Center in fiscal year 2009. Without adequate
    funding, the MPA Center cannot properly carry out the goals of creating
    and expanding a national system of MPAs, rendering technical assistance
    to state-level MPA programs, and maintaining its MPA inventory.
        In conclusion, MCBI respectfully requests that the subcommittee
    augment funding for the marine ecosystem and species protection
    programs mentioned above. Thank you for the opportunity to share our
    views.
                                     ______

          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 2009, and we respectfully request this
    statement be made part of the official hearing record.
        The National Corn Growers Association (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 check-off programs for the purpose of
    creating new opportunities and markets for corn growers.
        NCGA's top priority in the fiscal year 2009 Science, State, Justice
    and Commerce appropriations bill is maintaining funding and focus of
    the $101.22 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 plant genes at all levels in species of
    economic importance 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 $29.5 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 DNA sequence
    of the maize plant and to identify the genes and begin to determine
    their position on the chromosomes--the tiny bundles of DNA that form
    the storage units of genetic information. The sequencing of corn pushed
    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. Corn will also serve as a model system to aid in elucidating
    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, Gramine, MazeGDB
    and other public repositories for genome-sequence data.
        With focused funding, we will be much closer to achieving the goal
    of this initiative--understanding the structure and function of all
    economically significant plant genes. The corn industry, including the
    academic research community, grain handlers, growers, and seed
    companies, supported the corn genome sequencing project and will
    continue to support a program that maintains its focus on discovering
    the functionality of genes in economically important plant species. A
    complete corn genome sequence and the application of its information
    will provide a wide range of benefits. Both the public and private
    sectors 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, lower nitrogen
    needs, and higher yields--all increasing sustainability. 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
    $675.06 million, and increase of $63.04 million, or 10 percent, over
    the fiscal year 2008 request of $612.02 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 sub-activity request for Plant Genome Research (PGR)
    of $101.22 million, an amount that does not contemplate an increase
    from the fiscal year 2008 request. PGR sub-activity was initiated in
    fiscal year 1998 as a stand alone budget managed by Biological
    Infrastructure (DBI). 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. PGR
    supports research in agronomic significant species. However, the fiscal
    year 2009 budget proposes to roll PGR into the Integrated Organismal
    Systems (IOS) sub-activity, potentially causing the program to lose
    focus. Rolling the PGR budget into IOS will result in a significant
    reduction in funds available for new genetic projects in economically
    important species as the needs of non-agricultural plants would be
    served from the same budget. The fiscal year 2009 budget also proposes
    to roll Arabidopsis 2010 into the IOS sub-activity. 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 or IOS.
    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 independent Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP)
    complement each other and provide a broad base of support for the plant
    biology research community. Arabidopsis 2010 has traditionally received
    up to $25 million per year. It is critical that both activities remain
    separate and 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 2009 Science, State, Justice and Commerce
    appropriations bill language that secures the $101.22 million PGR
    budget to be applied exclusively to species of economic importance,
    keeping in line with the original intent of the program.
        Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to corn
    growers over the years. Please feel free to contact Jon Doggett at 202-
    628-7001 if you need any additional information.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

        Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2009 funding for
    the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). We appreciate
    the Subcommittee's past support and respectfully request your approval
    of $4 million through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's (NOAA) fiscal year 2009 appropriation.
        This funding request is well within the authorized levels and would
    allow the Foundation to uphold our mission and expand our successful
    partnership with NOAA. Madam Chairman, I want to make one very
    important point: we are asking for your support of well-established
    conservation programs with national significance. The Foundation is an
    honest broker for the federal agencies and we have a remarkable track
    record of bringing private partners together to leverage federal funds
    and maximize conservation impacts.
        In 1999, Congress expanded the Foundation's mandate to specifically
    include NOAA's mission to restore and protect marine and coastal
    resources. During fiscal year 2001-2006, the Foundation received an
    average appropriation of $2 million annually to further the mission of
    NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and National Ocean Service
    through cooperative agreements and leveraging of private sector funds.
    In fiscal year 2007, the Foundation sustained cooperative agreements
    with NOAA to continue our partnership programs. We respectfully request
    that the Subcommittee restore NOAA appropriations for the Foundation in
    fiscal year 2009 to accelerate our work with NOAA to protect coastal
    habitats and marine species.
        This fiscal year 2009 request would allow the Foundation to expand
    key partnerships and highly successful grant programs in the areas of
    marine debris removal, coral reef conservation, marine species
    protection and coastal ecosystems such as Delaware Bay, Long Island
    Sound, Tampa Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay.
    The Foundation continues to excel in grant-making while providing
    thought leadership, accountability and sustainable conservation
    outcomes. Our unique ability to organize federal agencies and private
    partners to work together to achieve mutual conservation goals through
    on-the-ground and in-the-water grant programs is notable and there is
    significant potential to advance these efforts in fiscal year 2009 and
    beyond.
        In addition to NOAA, the Foundation works closely with the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other Department of the Interior
    agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and USDA's Natural
    Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), among others. On average, every
    federal dollar is leveraged with three or more matching dollars from
    the non-federal sector. Therefore, a NOAA appropriation of $4 million
    in fiscal year 2009 would turn into a minimum of $8 million, according
    to the Foundation's Congressional Charter which requires a minimum of a
    1:1 match, and have the potential to turn into $16 million or more for
    on-the-ground conservation. Funds appropriated by this Subcommittee are
    fully dedicated to project grants and do not cover any overhead
    expenses of the Foundation.
        This Subcommittee's funding will also attract additional funding
    for conservation through corporate sponsorship, legal settlements, and
    direct gifts. Through our targeted grants, the Foundation strategically
    invests federal funds entrusted to us to achieve measurable success in
    ``moving the needle'' on collaborative conservation objectives over the
    next five to ten-year period. To date, the Foundation has leveraged
    more than $53 million in NOAA funds to invest more than $157 million
    for on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation. Over 1,200 project
    grants 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.
    Conserving Fish, Wildlife, Plants and Habitats
        fiscal year 2009 appropriations through NOAA will be focused on
    mutually agreed upon projects according to our Keystone Initiatives and
    the objectives of the Foundation's Special Grant Programs, which are
    specific to a geographic area, group of species, or conservation
    concern. 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. In 2007 the Foundation continued implementing a new strategic
    plan and developing targeted Keystone Initiatives, with the goal of
    achieving sustainable and measurable conservation impacts.
        Four Keystone Initiatives were launched by the Foundation in 2007:
    (1) Birds, (2) Wildlife and Habitats, (3) Fish, and (4) Marine and
    Coastal Conservation. 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.
    Achieving success through our Keystone Initiatives will also help to
    fulfill the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan and the
    National Oceanographic Partnership Program, among others.
        With increased support through NOAA appropriations, the Foundation
    can accelerate our collaborative efforts to achieve long-term
    conservation impacts for fish and wildlife through our Keystone
    Initiatives. Increased funding in fiscal year 2009 will also help to
    strengthen the Foundation's Special Grant Programs, a few of which are
    highlighted below:
      --The Coral Reef Conservation Fund was initiated in 2000 with NOAA to
            build public-private partnerships and leverage resources for
            effective stewardship of marine and coastal resources, and the
            communities that depend on them. FWS and NRCS have contributed
            to the Fund which supports grants to reduce and prevent
            degradation of coral reefs and associated habitats. Recently,
            the Harold K.L. Castle Foundation provided additional support
            for our efforts in Hawai'i and Tesoro Corporation is providing
            additional support in 2008 for an education and outreach
            campaign. The Foundation has provided funding for nearly 200
            projects with $7.3 million in federal and non-federal funds,
            leveraged with $11.6 million in non-federal matching funds, for
            a total of $18.9 million for coral reef conservation in 38
            countries, including 4 U.S. states and 8 U.S. territories.
      --The International Sea Turtle Conservation Fund supports projects
            for the six species of sea turtles found in the Western
            Hemisphere, all of which are considered endangered or
            threatened. Since 1998, grants have been awarded for more than
            100 projects in over 25 countries, representing a total of $6.2
            million in funding from both federal and non-federal sources.
            Projects focus on key nesting and foraging areas for species
            survival as well as local capacity-building and outreach with
            fisherman to increase awareness and minimize damage caused by
            certain fishing techniques to marine turtle populations. This
            collaborative effort with NOAA and FWS is the leading source of
            funding for sea turtles in the Western Hemisphere.
      --The Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program was established in
            2006 through a partnership with NOAA's Marine Debris Program.
            The program focuses on improving best management practices of
            ports and marinas, reducing derelict fishing gear, and research
            to better understand the impacts of marine debris on marine
            mammals, sensitive habitats, and tourist and fishing
            industries. Since 2006, the Foundation has supported 28
            projects with over $1.2 million in federal funds, leveraged
            with over $1.5 million in non-federal matching funds for
            projects in 13 States and 4 U.S. Territories. In 2007, the
            Foundation formed partnerships with industry to prevent debris
            introduction to the marine environment, including the new Reel
            in and Recycle Program in partnership with Pure Fishing and
            Berkeley Recycling, and the Nets to Energy in partnership with
            Covanta, aimed at recycling retiring or derelict fishing gear
            and convert it into energy.
      --The Pinellas County Environmental Fund (PCEF) is a unique
            partnership formed in 2000 between the Pinellas County Board of
            County Commissioners, NOAA, and the Foundation to actively
            pursue the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and
            wildlife habitat around Tampa Bay. PCEF helps to implement the
            on-the-ground habitat and species conservation recommendations
            developed through the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and
            incorporated into the Tampa Bay Comprehensive Conservation and
            Management Plan. Since inception, the PCEF has leveraged $9.6
            million with an additional $14.3 million in matching funds to
            support 123 projects for a total conservation investment of
            nearly $24 million in the Tampa Bay area.
        Other Special Grant Programs supported by NOAA, including the
    Delaware Estuary Watershed Grants Program, Long Island Sound Futures
    Fund and Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund, continued positive results in
    2007 with grantee requests far exceeding available funds. As mentioned,
    the Foundation is successfully building bridges between the government
    and private sector to benefit NOAA's mission. Fiscal year 2009
    appropriations through NOAA allow the Foundation to continue our
    investment in common-sense, innovative, cooperative approaches that
    directly benefit coral reefs and other marine habitats as well as
    targeted species, such as Loggerhead turtles, Hawskbill turtles, and
    Pacific coho salmon.

    A Tradition of Successful and Accountable Performance
        Since 1984, the Foundation has awarded nearly 9,500 grants to over
    3,000 organizations in the United States and abroad and leveraged--with
    our partners--more than $400 million in federal funds into over $1.3
    billion for conservation. NFWF is recognized by Charity Navigator with
    a 4-star rating for efficiency and effectiveness. The Foundation has
    taken important strides to improve our grant review and contracting
    process to ensure we maximize efficiency while maintaining strict
    financial and evaluation-based requirements. Interactive tools through
    our website have improved communication with our stakeholders and
    helped to streamline our grant-making process. We expect that as of
    spring 2008, the Foundation will be operating under a paperless
    application system.
        Grant-making through our Keystone Initiatives and Special Grant
    Programs involves a thorough internal and external review process. Peer
    reviews involve federal and state agencies, affected industry, non-
    profit organizations, 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, according to our Congressional Charter, 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.
        Once again, Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued
    support and hope the Subcommittee will approve funding for the
    Foundation in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Optoelectronics Industry Development
                                  Association

        On behalf of the 75 member organizations of the Optoelectronics
    Industry Development Association (OIDA) and our approximately 200
    affiliates, I urge you to fund the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) in fiscal year 2009 at the levels authorized in the
    America COMPETES Act signed into law in 2007: $541.9 million for
    Scientific and Technical Research and Services, $86.4 million for
    Construction of Research Facilities, $131.5 million for the new
    Technology Innovation Program, and $122 million for the Manufacturing
    Extension Partnerships, or a total of $881.8 million.
        The high technology community depends on sound metrology to support
    its products. The NIST Optoelectronics Division helped develop the
    metrology standards that enabled American companies to establish a very
    strong market share in optical fiber, which provides the backbone of
    the Internet. But the need for metrology assistance continues and our
    members therefore strongly support NIST's proposed fiscal year 2009
    initiative called ``Going at Light Speed: Optical Communications and
    Computing.'' In a different area, the NIST Optical Technology Division
    provides the standards for the emerging solid state lighting industry,
    in which our members are developing new technology that will save
    energy, help our environment, and enable new lighting functions. These
    are just a few examples from our industry.
        We strongly object to the absence of an Administration request for
    funding for the new NIST Technology Innovation Program (TIP). Like its
    predecessor, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), TIP will help our
    members, many of which are small and medium-sized companies, advance
    their technologies through the most difficult and risky stages of
    development. We believe that the legislation creating TIP has resolved
    all significant concerns with ATP, and TIP will prove to be an
    extraordinarily successful program.
        We appreciate your consideration of the needs of our industry. The
    Optoelectronics Industry Development Association is a Washington, DC-
    based organization that is the focal point for vision, transformation,
    and growth of the optoelectronics industry. OIDA advances the
    competitiveness of its members by focusing on the business of
    technology, not just technology itself.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Fund for Animal Welfare

        The International Fund for Animal Welfare and our more than 2
    million members worldwide appreciate this opportunity to submit
    testimony in support of recovery efforts for the endangered North
    Atlantic right whale. On behalf of the many scientists, academics,
    aquariums, and conservationists who are deeply worried about the plight
    of the North Atlantic right whale, we are writing to request the
    Subcommittee's support for restoring funding for North Atlantic right
    whale conservation and research programs administered by the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS). Adequate funding is essential to ensure that this
    endangered marine mammal is not lost forever. Specifically, we ask
    Congress to restore funding in NOAA's fiscal year 2009 budget to the
    fiscal year 2005 level of $12.5 million. This funding is vital for the
    long-term recovery of this species. At least half of the requested
    amount should be directed to funding disentanglement efforts and a
    competitive grants program that focuses on (1) innovative entanglement
    mitigation and monitoring, (2) reproduction and health research (health
    assessment, reproduction studies and monitoring, and non-invasive
    medical assessments), and (3) monitoring of anthropogenic impacts
    (necropsy, carcass recovery, field monitoring, scar analysis).
        The North Atlantic right whale is one of the worlds' most
    endangered marine mammals, with only about 300-400 whales remaining
    today. While the North Atlantic right whale is protected under both the
    Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a lack of
    adequate resources over the years has severely hampered NMFS' ability
    to effectively protect and recover this endangered species.
        The survival of each individual is vitally important to ensure the
    survival of this species. Since 1986, the majority of confirmed North
    Atlantic right whale deaths, have resulted from human-induced causes
    including ship strikes and entanglements in fishing gear. Since January
    2004, twenty right whale deaths have been confirmed. These data are a
    minimum estimate of the actual number of deaths as they do not account
    for animals that may have died at sea and gone undetected. At least
    nine of these mortalities were linked to ship strikes. Seven of them
    were reproductively mature females and three were pregnant with near-
    term fetuses at the time of death, suggesting that females are
    particularly vulnerable to ship strikes. These data alone represent a
    loss of more than five percent of the total breeding population adding
    yet more pressure to the successful recovery of this species.
        Little is known about the year-round distribution of right whales.
    Existing federally-funded surveys operate seasonally, and only in
    specific areas where human impacts are thought to be greatest. This
    results in many areas with little or no survey effort, which has led to
    a lack of understanding of other areas that may be important to right
    whale survival, which puts them at an avoidable and unnecessary risk.
        Restoring funding to the fiscal year 2005 level of $12.5 million
    would provide much-needed funding for: surveys (both visual and
    acoustic); mandatory ship reporting systems; ship strike strategy
    implementation (including enforcement of speed restrictions and routing
    measures); mortality investigations; disentanglement efforts; gear
    research; state and federal cooperative research grants; health
    assessments; population monitoring; implementation and refinement of
    take reduction plans; and other high-priority projects identified in
    the recovery plan. This will allow NMFS to improve protections for
    right whales by reducing the threat of entanglements in fishing gear
    and preventing fatal ship strikes.
        The urgency of this situation is highlighted by the announcement in
    December, 2006, of the extinction of the Yangtze, or baiji, river
    dolphin in China. In the 1980's, scientists estimated there were 400
    baiji alive, only a remnant of the estimated 5,000 that once existed,
    but a number sufficient to allow recovery for the species, if
    adequately protected. Sadly, over-fishing, vessel traffic, noise
    pollution, habitat degradation and marine debris continued to exert
    ever-increasing pressure on the remaining population. The result? In
    less than 30 years, they are now officially extinct and join the
    growing list of species that humans have helped drive to extinction.
        The similarities between the history and fate of the baiji and the
    North Atlantic right whale are alarming. Human generated threats such
    as vessel strikes, entanglements in fishing gear, pollution, and
    habitat degradation have replaced whaling as a threat. We are seeing
    the increasing industrialization of our oceans, and whales will be the
    first to pay the price of our neglect.
        North Atlantic right whales remain at risk of extinction from
    human-induced vessel strikes and entanglements in fishing gear, and
    from low reproductive rates. NMFS has made laudable efforts to reduce
    mortalities from shipping and fishing, but these efforts have been
    hamstrung by inadequate funding and information. We remain hopeful that
    the Administration will soon issue long-overdue protections from ship
    strikes and provide the funding needed for implementation and
    monitoring to ensure full compliance with these protective measures.
        In collaboration with scientists, academics, aquariums,
    conservationists, and as identified in NMFS' own recovery plan, we have
    identified the following funding priorities for fiscal year 2009 to
    further recovery efforts of North Atlantic right whales. The requested
    funding will ensure the survival of right whales by providing better
    information to managers, developing solutions for conflicts with
    industry, supporting management measures that integrate industry and
    right whale needs, and monitoring progress toward these goals.
    Innovative entanglement mitigation and monitoring
        Gear research is urgently needed to develop fishing methods and
    gear types that will not harm right whales while also allowing
    fishermen to make a living. A new rule mandating sinking groundline
    will be in effect in October 2008 and is likely to reduce right whale
    entanglements. No clear options or agreement on vertical lines exist,
    and work on this problem is urgently needed. Vertical lines may account
    for up to 70 percent of entanglements.

    Reproduction and health research (health assessment, reproduction
            studies and monitoring, and non-invasive medical assessments)
        Right whale reproduction is still suffering from unknown effects.
    The potential causes of impaired reproduction include habitat problems
    (including noise and pollution), incidental effects of entanglements
    (over 70 percent of right whales have been entangled), disease
    (possible human sources), and red tides. Identifying those causes could
    lead to prevention or solutions that would enhance population recovery.
    Health assessments are a critical tool for evaluating the aftermath of
    ship strikes and entanglements, and allow predictions of survival. In
    addition, health assessments are essential for evaluating trends in the
    population related to reproduction and survival.

    Monitoring of anthropogenic impacts (necropsy, carcass recovery, field
            monitoring, scar analysis)
        Support for necropsy work on stranded right whales is needed to
    determine the cause of death. This is a fundamental tool for evaluating
    whether management actions have been effective. Monitoring of
    anthropogenic impacts on right whales through photo-documentation and
    scarring analysis is critical to understanding whether management
    actions regarding fishing and shipping have been effective. Appropriate
    photographic data collection, scarring analysis, and entanglement
    documentation are all required to understand the status of the right
    whale population.

    Surveys (both visual and acoustic, habitat studies)
        Effective management of human activities to reduce impacts to right
    whales requires a detailed understanding of migratory paths and
    behavioral patterns. Shipboard and aerial surveys are the single most
    important source of information to determine seasonal distribution of
    right whales. Shipboard surveys also collect vital population data,
    including biopsy samples for genetic studies and fecal samples for
    reproduction and health research. Passive acoustic surveys provide a
    simple tool for evaluating the presence of whales when poor weather or
    nighttime conditions prevent visual surveys. These combined datasets
    are essential for managers attempting to manage anthropogenic risk to
    right whales.
        While surveys directly address our need to understand right whale
    distribution, habitat studies address questions of why right whales
    visit particular habitats. Right whales may experience different risks
    depending upon the habitat use of an area (i.e., surface feeding in the
    great South Channel puts whales at risk from ships, and bottom feeding
    may put whales at risk from certain fishing gear). Short-term tagging
    studies, combined with prey and oceanographic sampling, can provide
    valuable information to managers, and long term non-invasive tagging
    techniques (under development), can do this across several habitats.

    Disentanglement efforts
        Until appropriate ``whale-safe'' gear and or methods have been
    developed and implemented, disentanglement efforts are our last line of
    defense against right whale deaths from fishing gear. Right whales are
    commonly hard and always dangerous to disentangle. Pharmacological
    restraint may enhance success, and these and other available tools
    should be deployed as appropriate.

    Catalog and population monitoring, genetic studies
        The foundation of all right whale research and conservation efforts
    is the individual identification of right whales, which allows tracking
    of births, deaths, movements, and anthropogenic effects by age, sex,
    and genetic characteristics. Catalog data identifies segments of the
    population that are at risk from human activities, and is the only way
    to monitor recovery.
        The catalog is critical for tracking population size and trends,
    developing population models for management, and targeting particular
    management actions. Genetic analyses provide information that cannot be
    obtained by any other means including factors affecting the
    reproductive rate, and genetic identification of live and dead right
    whales.

    Implementation, refinement, and enforcement of take reduction plans
        NMFS has the ultimate responsibility for reducing take of North
    Atlantic right whales, and needs adequate support and the best
    available data to ensure this process is effective and informed by good
    science.
        In conclusion, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriate no less
    than $12.5 million in the fiscal year 2009 for recovery of the
    endangered North Atlantic right whale. Funding of the previously
    mentioned programs is essential to not only protect the North Atlantic
    right whale from further decline, but to help recover their population
    to a level that will ensure these charismatic creatures, which play an
    integral role in the oceans' ecosystems, will survive for the benefit
    and enjoyment of future generations.
                                     ______

                          Prepared Statement of Oceana

        On behalf of the more than 250,000 supporters of Oceana, an
    international, non-profit conservation organization devoted to
    protecting ocean waters and wildlife, I submit the following testimony
    on the fiscal year 2009 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. I request that
    this testimony be submitted for the official record.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
    mission is ``to understand and predict changes in Earth's environment
    and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our
    Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs.'' More
    specifically, NOAA manages our fisheries, researches climate change,
    and predicts our weather, among other critical duties. Funding for this
    agency has been well below the needed level to fully address all of its
    responsibilities.

        In the fiscal year 2009 budget, the Administration requests $4.11
    billion for NOAA. Oceana is pleased that the Administration request is
    above the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount of $3.91 billion. The
    majority of the increase is directed to the Procurement, Acquisition
    and Construction (PAC) account for needed improvements to the NOAA
    satellite program. While this increase is necessary to keep our
    satellites operating, more resources must also flow into the
    Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account, which funds the
    programmatic work of the agency. The ORF account has remained stagnant
    since fiscal year 2005, which when taking inflation into account, has
    resulted in less money for ocean conservation and management.
        Oceana urges the Subcommittee to provide $4.5 billion for NOAA in
    the fiscal year 2009 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill.
    NOAA has a critical role in promoting sustainable coastal communities
    and a healthy economy. We recommend that any increase above the
    President's request be directed into the ORF account to provide
    resources for fishery management, coral reef protection, undersea
    research, ocean wildlife conservation, coastal management, and ocean
    education.
        More specifically, we urge the subcommittee to fund the following
    critical ocean research and conservation programs at these recommended
    levels: $56 million for fishery observer programs; $40.5 million for
    stock assessments; $57.1 for enforcement activities; $15 million for
    deep water coral conservation; $26.4 million for sea turtle research
    and management; $82 for marine mammal research and management; and $10
    million for ocean acidification research.

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
        The Administration's fiscal year 2009 request for the National
    Marine Fisheries Service is less than the previous year's enacted level
    and is below the fiscal year 2008 Administration's request. This
    decrease is disappointing; especially considering the President's
    signing into law the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) in January 2007. This
    comprehensive law includes critical changes to our fishery management
    system and requires additional funding to implement these changes. The
    Administration's request includes approximately $32 million for new
    programs to implement the requirements under the MSRA, but more money
    is needed to provide data for responsible fishery management. Stock
    assessments and fishery observers are just a few examples of such
    programs. In addition, sufficient enforcement of fishery management
    laws is needed.
                Fishery Observer Programs--$56 million
        Fishery observers are independent scientists who gather information
    about fishing practices by accompanying fisherman at sea. Observers
    collect data on the composition of what is caught and brought on board
    during fishing operations. This is in contrast to landings data which
    only records what is brought to port--failing to account for bycatch--
    often dead or injured fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds and
    other ocean wildlife that is discarded. According to the NMFS,
    observers are currently deployed in only 42 of the nation's 300
    fisheries. Of the fisheries that have observers, coverage levels in
    many of these fisheries are well below the amount needed for precise
    and accurate estimates of bycatch and total catch of fish and other
    marine species.
                Stock Assessments--$40.5 million
        Oceana supports the President's request for $40.5 million for the
    fisheries stock assessment program. Almost two-thirds of the nation's
    fish populations lack basic information to determine whether or not
    those fish populations are depleted or ``overfished.'' In fact, there
    are 65 ``major'' stocks or stock complexes classified as ``unknown''
    with respect to their population status. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act requires that the fisheries of the
    United States end overfishing, therefore accurate data is needed to
    provide regional fishery managers with the information needed to make
    management decisions.
                Enforcement--$57.1 million
        Successful fishery management relies upon fair enforcement of laws,
    regulations, and other requirements of fishery management plans.
    Without resources for enforcement personnel at sea and at ports,
    compliance with fisheries laws will be inconsistent. The enforcement
    program also provides resources for cooperative agreements with state
    enforcement authorities.
                Deep Sea Coral Conservation--$15 million
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    provides the regional Fishery Management Councils with the authority to
    protect deep sea coral habitat. These long-lived, slow growing corals
    can be destroyed in a matter of minutes by certain types of destructive
    fishing gear. These coral areas often serve as nurseries for
    commercially important species. Recognizing the importance of corals,
    the President's budget includes $1.5 million for a deep sea coral
    research program to identify and map sensitive habitat areas. Oceana
    supports this recommended increase for research and also would like
    additional resources be used for additional fishery observers,
    enforcement of protected areas, and the minimization of gear impacts on
    deep sea coral habitat.
                Sea Turtle Research and Conservation--$26.4 million
        Oceana requests that the Subcommittee reject the Administration's
    funding cut to the marine turtle program and instead expand upon
    existing funding. For over 25 years, all sea turtles that swim in U.S.
    waters are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
    Species Act, yet populations of sea turtles continue to decline.
    Commercial fisheries alone are authorized to kill 10,000 and injure an
    additional 334,000 turtles each year. Beyond commercial fishing, the
    federal government has not analyzed the cumulative impact of all
    permitted activities on sea turtle populations. There is not enough
    research on the health of sea turtle populations to ensure that these
    authorized takes are not jeopardizing the existence of the species.
    Additional funding will enhance research, recovery and conservation
    activities for imperiled sea turtles species.
                Marine Mammal Research and Conservation--$82 million
        Oceana requests that funding for the marine mammal program be
    restored to the fiscal year 2005 level of $82 million. These funds will
    help ensure that National Marine Fisheries Serve adopts measures to
    recover depleted and strategic marine mammal species, such as Northern
    right whales, bottlenose dolphins, and pilot whales. Activities that
    may be supported by these funds include marine mammal research, bycatch
    reduction strategies recovery plan implementation, and marine mammal
    mortality event response. The President's request of $41.23 million is
    only half of the enacted fiscal year 2005 level.
                Ocean Acidification--$10 million
        In addition to climate change, humanity's emissions of carbon
    dioxide are altering the acidity of the world's oceans. As emissions
    increase, more carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans, thus altering
    the water chemistry. Researchers agree that ocean acidification will
    pose a significant threat to marine ecosystems over the next century,
    with significant potential impacts to fisheries and coral reefs. More
    research is needed to better understand the ecological implications of
    these predicted impacts to the entire marine ecosystem and the degree
    to which marine organisms and ecosystems will be able to adapt to
    increased acidity. Oceana recommends $10 million for an ocean
    acidification research program.

    Climate Change
        NOAA's role in climate change includes monitoring, researching, and
    predicting the impacts of climate change on humans and the environment.
    In the oceans alone, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and increased
    intensity of storms are just a few of the areas under NOAA's purview,
    not to mention, coastal infrastructure impacts, changes to inland
    weather patterns, and increased satellite needs to monitor global
    fluctuations. NOAA's research capabilities are becoming increasingly
    important in our changing world. New money is needed now to address
    climate change. This increased research should not come out of the
    existing NOAA budget and at the cost of current programs.
        Overall, substantial increases are needed for the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration. Increases to the PAC account cannot
    come at a cost to the ORF funding. Both accounts need substantial
    increases in the fiscal year 2009 budget and in years to come if NOAA
    intends to manage our fisheries, conserve endangered species, protect
    ocean and coastal habitat, monitor global warming and its impacts,
    predict our weather, and perform other critical services to our nation.
        Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations.
        Oceana received no funding from a federal grant (or subgrant
    thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) in the current fiscal
    year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences

        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) encourages the
    Committee to provide the National Science Foundation (NSF) with $7.326
    billion for fiscal year 2009, the funding level authorized by the
    America COMPETES Act.
        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 participating in coalition activities in research,
    education, and public policy; publishing the peer-reviewed journal
    BioScience and the education Web site ActionBioscience.org; providing
    scientific peer review and advisory services to government agencies and
    other clients; convening meetings; and managing scientific programs.
        The fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations provided only a 2.5
    percent increase over fiscal year 2007 funding for the NSF. This
    appropriation disappointed many in the science community who had hoped
    for the 10 or 11 percent increase pledged by Congress through House and
    Senate Appropriations Committee marks, respectively.
        Although the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request recognizes
    the need to increase funding for the NSF, the request would only
    provide a modest two-year adjustment for NSF programs such as the
    Biological Sciences directorate (BIO). Thus, we encourage the Committee
    to work to provide NSF funding at the level authorized in the America
    COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69), enabling a modest increase for BIO
    and the Social, Behavioral and Economics directorate (SBE).
        Invigorating our innovation enterprise, improving science
    education, strengthening research infrastructure, and addressing
    energy, security, and environmental problems are bipartisan national
    priorities. NSF is the primary federal agency that funds fundamental
    research through competitively awarded, peer-reviewed, extramural grant
    programs. These research grants drive discovery and have enabled the
    United States to remain a global economic and scientific leader.
    Moreover, NSF-sponsored biological sciences research is transformative
    and leads to the development of sustainable and cost-effective
    solutions for society's greatest challenges, including energy
    independence, climate change, and security.
        NSF's BIO directorate 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,
    and 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 government data, BIO provides 67 percent of federal
    grant support for fundamental biological research conducted at our
    nation's universities and other nonprofit research centers.
    Transformative research in the biological sciences has advanced our
    understanding of complex living systems and is leading the way forward
    in addressing major challenges--protecting the environment, conserving
    biodiversity, and developing new bio-inspired technology. In fact,
    during a hearing before the House CJS Subcommittee on February 27,
    2008, NSF Director Arden Bement referred to this century as ``the bio
    century'' and went on to explain that bioscience is ``where the
    fundamental work is being done.'' Indeed, biological research from
    molecules and cells to ecosystems is the backbone supporting major
    cross-foundation initiatives, including Adaptive Systems Technology and
    Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment (WATER). To continue to
    support activities across the Foundation, it is critical that BIO
    receives appropriate funding to advance its core research programs.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request would provide
    $5.594 billion to support disciplinary research programs within the
    Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account. This funding level
    would provide an average 16.0 percent increase over fiscal year 2008
    estimated appropriations for the R&RA account; however, within R&RA,
    proposed budget increases are spread unevenly among the directorates.
    For example, the Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorate would
    increase $235.36 million (20.2 percent) and the Engineering directorate
    would increase $122.46 million (19.2 percent) over their respective
    fiscal year 2008 estimated appropriations while BIO is slated for just
    a $63.04 million increase (10.3 percent). This pattern would be
    understandable and acceptable if it were a one-year anomaly. However,
    this pattern of funding has become the norm--leaving some directorates,
    such as BIO, SBE and Geosciences behind.
        In contrast, COMPETES authorizes $5.742 million for R&RA in fiscal
    year 2009, and would provide an average 19.1 percent increase over
    fiscal year 2008 appropriations. Moreover, COMPETES-authorized funding
    levels would provide NSF with the necessary funding to provide BIO with
    a 19 percent increase, placing it more on-par with the trajectory of
    other directorates.
        Administration officials point to the importance of aligning the
    budget with priorities articulated in both the American Competitiveness
    Initiative and the America COMPETES Act. Yet, language in COMPETES
    (Public Law 110-69, Sec. 7018(b)) calls for parity in funding among
    scientific disciplines by specifying, ``The Director shall give
    priority in the selection of awards and the allocation of Foundation
    resources to proposed research activities, and grants funded under the
    Foundation's Research and Related Activities Account, that can be
    expected to make contributions in physical or natural science,
    technology, engineering, social sciences, or mathematics, or that
    enhance competitiveness, innovation, or safety and security in the
    United States.''
        Indeed, research in the biological sciences has directly
    contributed to the development of new technologies and has advanced our
    understanding of life in critical areas, including genomics, emerging
    diseases, ecosystem services, global change, nanotechnology, and
    complex systems. Such research has led to important discoveries with
    implications for American competitiveness and public health and safety.
    For example, scientists at Arizona State University funded through BIO
    used a special laser to analyze the split-second process within
    photosynthesis where plants harness light energy; their research may
    have important implications for the development of solar energy
    technologies. It is imperative that we understand how biological
    systems--whether a microbe or an ecosystem--function so that we can
    address current issues like global change and can innovate solutions to
    additional challenges that will likely emerge in the future.
        Members of the biological sciences community are concerned that
    inadequate funding is being provided to fundamental biological and
    environmental sciences. For twelve years, the research grant funding
    rate for BIO has been consistently lower than the NSF-wide funding
    rate. In 2008, the research grant funding rate was only 15 percent
    compared with an agency-wide rate of 21 percent. Unfortunately, this
    trend occurs at a time when BIO is contributing the largest percentage
    of federal dollars to basic biological sciences research and the number
    and scope of problems requiring biological information continues to
    increase.

    Key Areas
        Increased funding for NSF at the level authorized by the America
    COMPETES Act would enable more robust investment in the five core
    programs supported by BIO: Molecular and Cellular Biosciences;
    Integrative Organismal Systems; Environmental Biology; Biological
    Infrastructure; and Emerging Frontiers.
        The fiscal year 2009 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 $26 million has been requested for NEON in the fiscal year 2009 BIO
    budget. Roughly $16 million would be funded from Emerging Frontiers and
    $10 million from Biological Infrastructure.
        BIO provides essential support for the development and maintenance
    of other important research infrastructure (e.g., natural science
    collections and field stations) that is necessary to advance our
    understanding of biological systems.
        Indeed, there is a growing national awareness of the need to
    reinvest in the physical and personnel resources associated with our
    nation's scientific collections. Evidence for this may be found in the
    annual Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum to federal agencies on research
    and development priorities, which has charged federal agencies to
    evaluate the needs of the collections they host or support. A federal
    interagency working group on scientific collections has also been
    established. As part of this effort, NSF is surveying non-federal
    research collections to gain a better understanding of the nature of
    our nation's holdings.
        Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Division
    of Biological Infrastructure (DBI) is $86.99 million, only 0.1 percent
    more than DBI's fiscal year 2008 appropriation ($86.94 million). The
    biological sciences community is increasingly concerned that decreasing
    investment in the tools of science, namely the facilities, collections,
    and instruments that enable discovery, will have profound and negative
    impacts on the science.
        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. We encourage Congress to
    continue to support these vital science education programs.
        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 either of
    us at 202-628-1500.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Padgett Business Services

        On behalf of Padgett Business Services, located in Fargo, North
    Dakota, I would like to thank the Committee for allowing our
    organization to submit this testimony for the record. I am writing to
    respectfully request that the Hollings Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership program be provided the authorized $122 million within the
    fiscal year 2009 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Bill. This requested level of funding for 2009 was
    provided for in the recently enacted America COMPETES Act. As you know,
    the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a program
    within the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, a program authorized to improve competitiveness of
    America's manufacturing community.
        The MEP is one of the most successful partnerships in the country.
    In addition to public support, a value proposition to improve
    manufacturer's global competitiveness is supported by those companies
    who receive benefit. In North Dakota, the Dakota MEP provides
    assistance to companies in continuous improvement, innovation,
    strategic growth, technology and workforce development--all major needs
    of our companies. In several companies, I have had the opportunity to
    partner with Dakota MEP to further develop our manufacturing capacity.
        As a Dakota MEP Director, I would also like to report that the
    average company benefits and impacts realized in the Dakota MEP
    improvement work with manufacturers mirrors the national MEP average at
    $1.4 million per engagement. These benefits have been realized by
    manufacturers who've partnered with Dakota MEP over the past six years.
        Manufacturing continues to diversify and grow the economies of the
    Dakotas. It currently is 10 percent of the gross state product in North
    Dakota and 11 percent in South Dakota. The industry has nearly 1,900
    firms employing 69,000 in the Dakotas exporting over $2 billion.
    Manufacturing brings new wealth to our country, our states and
    communities which, in turn, generate other economic activity and
    opportunities.
        Manufacturing must remain one of our country's economic strengths
    and the MEP is an invaluable program to help the industry better
    compete. Without unwavering strong federal support, the MEP will be
    unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small
    manufacturers' increasing needs. At a time when our economic strength
    and global competitiveness are national priorities, the MEP continues
    to be a wise investment. We respectfully request that you appropriate
    $122 million for the MEP in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Phoenix International

        On behalf of Phoenix International, a leader in the design and
    manufacture of custom, integrated electronic solutions, located in
    Fargo, North Dakota, I would like to thank the Committee for allowing
    our organization to submit this testimony for the record. I am writing
    to respectfully request that the Hollings Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership program be provided the authorized $122 million within the
    fiscal year 2009 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Bill. This requested level of funding for 2009 was
    provided for in the recently enacted America COMPETES Act. As you know,
    the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a program
    within the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, a program authorized to improve competitiveness of
    America's manufacturing community.
        The MEP is one of the most successful partnerships in the country.
    In addition to public support, a value proposition to improve
    manufacturer's global competitiveness is supported by those companies
    who receive benefit. In North Dakota, the Dakota MEP provides
    assistance to companies in continuous improvement, innovation,
    strategic growth, technology and workforce development--all major needs
    of our companies. With the assistance of Dakota MEP, our company has
    worked on a number of improvement projects to improve productivity.
        As a Dakota MEP Director, I would also like to report that the
    average company benefits and impacts realized in the Dakota MEP
    improvement work with manufacturers mirrors the national MEP average at
    $1.4 million per engagement. These benefits have been realized by
    manufacturers who've partnered with Dakota MEP over the past six years.
        Manufacturing continues to diversify and grow the economies of the
    Dakotas. It currently is 10 percent of the gross state product in North
    Dakota and 11 percent in South Dakota. The industry has nearly 1,900
    firms employing 69,000 in the Dakotas exporting over $2 billion.
    Manufacturing brings new wealth to our country, our states and
    communities which, in turn, generate other economic activity and
    opportunities.
        Manufacturing must remain one of our country's economic strengths
    and the MEP is an invaluable program to help the industry better
    compete. Without unwavering strong federal support, the MEP will be
    unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small
    manufacturers' increasing needs. At a time when our economic strength
    and global competitiveness are national priorities, the MEP continues
    to be a wise investment. We respectfully request that you appropriate
    $122 million for the MEP in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas

        The following is a brief, qualitative analysis of the local impact
    of the Presidents fiscal year 2009 budget proposal as we understand it
    from data available in the Department of the Interior Indian Affairs
    Budget Justifications Fiscal Year 2009 and related budget documents. A
    more detailed, large-scale analysis of the appropriation is available
    from the National Congress of American Indians (www.ncai.org), but here
    we focus on concerns and priorities of the Red Cliff Band, a small,
    federally-recognized Indian Tribe in far northern Wisconsin.
        Key information about the Red Cliff community is available in the
    attached Red Cliff ``Community Snapshot'' http://www.redcliff-nsn.gov/
    planning/08snapshot-2.pdf

    Natural Resources Management
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget continues to stifle the
    Tribe's effort to maintain an active role in the management and
    stewardship of the Lake Superior fishery resource, which has tangible
    recreational and economic benefits for the region and which was
    severely impacted by heavy cuts to the Tribal Management Development
    Program (TMDP) in the mid 80's and 90's. Funding since that time has
    stagnated such that, in 2009, TMDP funding will still have not
    recovered to levels of over twenty years prior, yet cost for such
    things as utilities, staff benefits, and supplies have significantly
    increased over that time, and this has prevented the Tribe from
    adequately addressing its aging hatchery facilities and water systems.
        Lake Superior has the only fully-restored, self-sustaining trout
    populations in Lake Superior, due in substantial part to Red Cliff's
    efforts. Now the fisheries management department of the Tribe, which
    co-manages an area of almost 2.8 million hectares, is further
    threatened by a dramatic increase in disease-management costs
    associated with the deadly fish disease VHS.
        Without offsets to these cumulative cost increases, the viability
    of Red Cliff's fisheries programs is severely threatened.
        More details about the accomplishments and challenges of the Red
    Cliff Natural Resources program are attached (Attachment 2).
        Request: At minimum, restore Red Cliff's TMDP funding to mid-80's
    funding levels of $300,000 (up from $222,000 proposed for fiscal year
    2009) and reject Bush's 30 percent cut to the BIA's Fish Hatchery
    Maintenance program.

    Public Safety and Justice
        Tribally-designated COPs grants have served as the Tribe's only
    reliable source of law enforcement vehicles and field equipment in the
    past decade. Red Cliff responds to emergencies not only on reservation
    lands but, at times, on the beautiful but dangerous shores of Lake
    Superior and the adjacent National Park lands, and Red Cliff likewise
    responds to the mutual aid requests of the City of Bayfield and
    Bayfield County. President Bush's budget will eliminate Tribal COPs
    set-asides, reducing the likelihood of our responders' availability and
    preparedness, thereby threatening the safety and well-being of
    residents and tourists.
        Likewise, set-asides are proposed to be eliminated for Tribal
    Courts, for which Red Cliff's base funding is also being reduced by 4.2
    percent in the President's budget. Red Cliff Tribal Court has no
    alternative funding and has already curtailed expenditures on judges
    and otherwise limited its services in the enforcement of vital local
    laws. With further erosion of funds, Red Cliff will continue to
    struggle to bring justice to the victims of child abuse, protect its
    treaty rights, or generally enforce the Red Cliff Code on which it
    depends for its sovereignty and civil order.
        Finally, the fiscal year 2009 budget Justification shows that
    nearly $15,000 for Red Cliff community fire protection has been
    eliminated. Red Cliff's local Fire Department which, again, serves Red
    Cliff and adjacent communities, is very much dependent on CFP dollars
    for equipment purchases, the most recent being wildland fire fighting
    vehicle attachments.
        Request: Reject the President's proposal to consolidate DOJ
    programs and eliminate Tribal set-asides. Maintain previous years'
    average funding levels of +/- $15,000 for Community Fire Protection.

    Education and Job Training
        With combined elimination of the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) and Job
    Placement and Training programs from the BIA's Consolidated Tribal
    Government budget, Red Cliff stands to lose over $73,500 in much-needed
    assistance to already-disadvantaged local people.
        The Red Cliff Tribe does not feel JOM's GPRA/PART ratings reflect
    the strong value that our community places on the JOM program, which
    serves as an important way to promote educational parity for children
    whose families experience unemployment and poverty rates several times
    that of surrounding Bayfield County. JOM provides such things as sports
    gear, instrument rentals, and other important academic supports which
    can make the difference between attainment and alienation. While JOM
    cannot solve all of the challenges of the Bayfield School district with
    its large proportion of native students, the tutors paid for by Red
    Cliff's JOM program have helped many young learners build the academic
    confidence to resist otherwise high truancy rates of the District.
        Job training and placement for Tribal members is especially
    important in light of Red Cliff's geographic isolation and distance to
    the service industries in which local jobs are relatively scarce. In
    light of great commitment to their ancestral lands and culture and
    their obligations to local extended families, Tribal members seeking
    jobs rely on placement and training assistance to increase their
    likelihood of local employment.
        Request: Reject the Presidents proposed elimination of the Johnson
    O'Malley program and Job Placement and Training programs.

    Housing and Community Facilities
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposes elimination of the
    Department of the Interior's Housing Improvement Program (HIP). While
    the program is competitive and does not result in a large number of
    projects in a community as small as Red Cliff, the Tribal members it
    does assist are among our most needy: the elderly and disabled. With
    housing having been in extremely short supply on the Red Cliff
    Reservation, deterioration of an elder's home often guarantees
    stressful relocation. HIP is often the only option for remodeling or
    replacement of existing homes where the elder cannot afford or qualify
    for other housing programs.
        A $4.6 million reduction has also been proposed for the Indian
    Community Development Block Grant program in fiscal year 2009. In Red
    Cliff, ICDBGs have been an absolutely essential solution to the
    abovementioned housing shortage. With ICDBGs and DOD Sec. 154 funds,
    the Tribe has been able to make the most significant housing
    infrastructure improvements in a generation--making over 175 sewered
    home sites available in the coming years. Likewise, ICDBGs offer the
    Tribe one of its primary options to address aging and inadequate public
    facility space.
        Every dollar eliminated from ICDBGs translates to homes not served
    with essential utilities or to community services that cannot be sited
    in Red Cliff.
        Request: Restore $13.6 million eliminated from the DOI's Housing
    Improvement Program and $4.6 million from HUD's Indian Community
    Development Block Grant. programs in fiscal year 2009.

    Health
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget does not slash budgets for
    the Indian Health Service, yet neither does it address the disturbing
    health trends in the community that are likely to pose a massive burden
    to the health care budgets of the Red Cliff Health Center, the City of
    Ashland's health service providers, Bayfield County, and the State of
    Wisconsin.
        We are referring in part to the fact that local data shows 74
    percent of native patients at the Red Cliff Health Center--including
    many children--are obese or at risk of obesity, and the resulting
    incidence of Type 2 diabetes and related complications are projected to
    triple disease-related health care expenditures for those afflicted, an
    increase that is above and beyond the double-digit medical services
    inflation that has been disproportionately impacting our impoverished
    community.
        The ten-year old Red Cliff Health Center is one of the Tribes
    greatest social and economic successes and has already met or exceeded
    some patient service levels that were not projected to be realized
    until 2015. The Red Cliff Health Center's ability to address the vital
    health needs of the Red Cliff community--ranging from pre-natal care to
    mental health treatment to dental services--are presently most limited
    by space available.
        To address the obesity challenge and other service demands
    mentioned above, the Health Center seeks a facility expansion of at
    least 5,000 to 8,000 square feet at a base cost of $1 million to $1.4
    million which would be dedicated to preventative health and specialty
    health services. IHS and other federal funds for facility expansion are
    presently very limited.
        The Red Cliff Health Center has earned a reputation for offering
    quality services to Tribal and non-Tribal members throughout the
    County. A special appropriation for Health Center expansion will help
    the Red Cliff Tribe to help avert the looming cost crisis and to offer
    marketable services and health industry jobs.
        For additional details see Attachment 3.
        Request: Special appropriation of up to $1.4 million for expansion
    of Red Cliff's Health Center for preventative health services.

    Welfare
        President Bush's fiscal year 2009 national budget proposes a $14
    million reduction in welfare assistance, which includes BIA's General
    Assistance Program (GA). Estimates of Tribe-specific cuts are not
    clear, but the fiscal year 2009 BIA budget justification shows that,
    both with regard to clients served and welfare costs for GA, Red Cliff
    could expect a cut of as much as 40 percent from fiscal year 2007
    levels of $82,000, which allows the Tribe to assist with over 300 cases
    per year.
        Compared with adjacent Bayfield County, the rates of unemployment
    and children in poverty in Red Cliff are as much as three times and
    five times higher, respectively. Loss of 40 percent of Tribal GA funds
    could pose extreme hardships to a number of our residents who have few
    if any other income options.
        Request: Reject Bush's proposed $14 million cut to BIA's welfare
    assistance programs.

    Transportation
        The President's proposal to cut in half the BIA road maintenance
    program comes at a time when costs for fuel, pavement, and other
    materials have substantially increased the per-mile cost of maintaining
    Red Cliff's 35 miles of reservation roads--costs which are already high
    due to severe winter conditions commonly experienced in our location at
    the northern tip of Wisconsin.
        The road maintenance funding cuts will have significant impacts
    beyond Red Cliff. The Tribe realizes great operating efficiencies by
    using BIA road maintenance dollars to contract with the nearby Town of
    Russell, whose facilities, staff, and equipment are utilized for road
    grading, snow removal, vegetation clearing, and other services
    necessary to maintain safe roads for residents and visitors. In
    addition to Russell, other communities' roads that are not on the
    Reservation but are nevertheless used heavily by Tribal members are
    also eligible for Tribal assistance. Thus, reductions to BIA roads
    maintenance funds may pose hardships not just to Red Cliff but to
    adjacent governments.
        Request: Reject Bush's proposed fiscal year 2009 50 percent
    reduction of BIA roads maintenance funding.

    Land Consolidation
        The Indian Land Consolidation Program (ILCP) was proposed for
    elimination in fiscal year 2009.
        Red Cliff's Reservation is a mere 14,000 acres, only 8,000 of which
    are held in Trust for the Tribe. Land recovery is therefore a top
    priority, but the Tribe itself has no discretionary funds for
    acquisitions. Fractionation of ownership interests in land probated to
    heirs of Tribal land allotees poses major obstacles to land recovery,
    and it also places heavy probate administration costs on the BIA, which
    consequently diminishes other BIA and/or federal services available to
    the Tribe.
        The President's claims of ILCP inefficacy are misleading. The
    program's efforts have been strategically targeted, and in those areas
    have been very effective. ILCP reports 68 percent of fractionated
    interests in Red Cliff have been acquired by ILCP, which translates to
    just over 1,000 acres--a very significant portion of our Reservation!
    Continued ILCP effort toward land consolidation is very important to
    Red Cliff and to other Tribes around the nation.
        Request: Reject Bush's proposed fiscal year 2009 elimination of the
    ILCP.

    General comments
        Contrary to what is sometimes heard from Indian Nations, the Red
    Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa strongly supports the mission and
    budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That is not to say we are
    entirely satisfied with BIA's performance or decisions, yet we
    recognize that we as individual Tribes are also responsible to aid the
    agency in attaining GPRA and PART goals.
        Of the Tribal casinos in the State of Wisconsin, the Red Cliff
    Tribe's Isle Vista Casino is distinguished as one of the lowest
    grossing, and thus it serves to offer only basic local employment and
    exceedingly little aid to local government. Stagnation in federal
    funding levels in the face of increasing costs of living therefore
    equates to lost programs, services, and organizational capacity. We ask
    you to protect and enhance Indian programs offered through BIA, IHS,
    HUD, USDA and others.
        The Red Cliff Tribe's greatest strides in recent years have been in
    the areas of housing and related infrastructure, and we are grateful
    for your support. Health care, education, economic development, and
    environmental protection remain as urgent needs in our community, and
    we look forward to working with you and your staff to discuss issues
    and implement solutions. Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Dakota Manufacturing Extension Partnership

        On behalf the Board of Directors of Dakota Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership, I would like to thank the Committee for allowing our
    organization to submit this testimony for the record. I am writing to
    respectfully request that the Hollings Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership program be provided the authorized $122 million within the
    fiscal year 2009 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Bill. This requested level of funding for 2009 was
    provided for in the recently enacted America COMPETES Act. As you know,
    the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a program
    within the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, a program authorized to improve competitiveness of
    America's manufacturing community.
        The MEP is one of the most successful partnerships in the country.
    In addition to public support, a value proposition to improve
    manufacturer's global competitiveness is supported by those companies
    who receive benefit. In the Dakotas, the Dakota MEP provides assistance
    to companies in continuous improvement, innovation, strategic growth,
    technology and workforce development--all major needs of our companies.
    Several years ago our company, Turtle Mountain Corporation in Dunseith,
    North Dakota, was able to significantly improve its overall
    competitiveness as a supplier and its workforce with the assistance of
    Dakota MEP.
        As a Dakota MEP Board Chairman, I would also like to report that
    the average company benefits and impacts realized in the Dakota MEP
    improvement work with manufacturers mirrors the national MEP average at
    $1.4 million per engagement. These benefits have been realized by
    manufacturers who've partnered with Dakota MEP over the past six years.
        Manufacturing continues to diversify and grow the economies of the
    Dakotas. It currently is 10 percent of the gross state product in North
    Dakota and 11 percent in South Dakota. The industry has nearly 1,900
    firms employing 69,000 in the Dakotas exporting over $2 billion.
    Manufacturing brings new wealth to our country, our states and
    communities which, in turn, generate other economic activity and
    opportunities.
        Manufacturing must remain one of our country's economic strengths
    and the MEP is an invaluable program to help the industry compete with
    offshore companies. Without unwavering strong federal support, the MEP
    will be unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small
    manufacturers' increasing needs. At a time when our economic strength
    and global competitiveness are national priorities, the MEP continues
    to be a wise investment. We respectfully request that you appropriate
    $122 million for the MEP in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
                           Information and Statistics

    Introduction
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Ron Hawley,
    Executive Director of SEARCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the Subcommittee for your support. The efforts of your outstanding
    subcommittee staff are also greatly appreciated. SEARCH has requested a
    $2 million earmark from the Department of Justice, Byrne Discretionary
    Grant Program to be included in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies Appropriation bill. This amount of funding will ensure
    that the SEARCH National Technical Assistance and Training Program can
    reach local and state criminal justice agencies that are truly in need
    of SEARCH's services.
        SEARCH is a state criminal justice support organization comprised
    of governors' appointees from each state. SEARCH's mission is to
    promote the effective use of information and identification technology
    by criminal justice agencies nationwide. For more than 20 years, the
    SEARCH National Technical Assistance and Training Program has been the
    only no-cost service for small- and medium-sized criminal justice
    agencies to assist them in: (1) enhancing and upgrading their
    information systems; (2) building integrated information systems that
    all criminal justice agencies need; (3) ensuring compatibility between
    local systems and state, regional and national systems; (4) developing
    and delivering high-tech crime training; and (5) providing computer
    forensic technical assistance support. SEARCH has provided training and
    technical assistance in every state. The criminal justice agencies that
    SEARCH has assisted have found our services invaluable.
        Because the National Technical Assistance and Training Program is
    national in scope, SEARCH is able to replicate successful
    implementation strategies in one state or locality and disseminate and
    transfer those strategies to other states and localities. This unique
    program not only helps state and local agencies work more efficiently
    and effectively through the use of advanced information technologies,
    but it also creates a foundation for a national information
    infrastructure for interoperable justice systems.
        SEARCH conducts research to examine emerging trends and issues that
    have the potential to impact the collection, maintenance and exchange
    of justice information, while advocating policies that ensure effective
    privacy protection for the subjects of those records. The technical
    assistance provided by SEARCH has always been sensitive to the privacy
    implications of the effective use of information systems.
        In short, the automated sharing of information is a critical
    component of effective justice. Better information means better
    decisions, and better decisions mean improved public safety. Creating
    information sharing capabilities among state and local public safety
    agencies that consistently conform to national and international
    standards efforts and that provide tangible benefits and outcomes will
    strengthen the foundation for successful nationwide information sharing
    to help prevent major national incidents and terrorist attacks.
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program has
    received rave reviews, not only from those local, regional and state
    law enforcement and criminal justice agencies that have received its
    services, but also from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which
    administers the grants to SEARCH.
        In the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-
    162), the Congress expressly and specifically authorized SEARCH's
    National Technical Assistance and Training Program. Chapter 5,
    Subsection C, 1184 of that provision reads:

        (a) In General.--Pursuant to subpart 1 of part E of title I of the
    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Attorney
    General may make grants to SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice
    Information and Statistics, to carry out the operations of the National
    Technical Assistance and Training Program.
        (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section
    $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

    Byrne Competitive Grant Program
        Before talking specifically about the SEARCH National Technical
    Assistance and Training Program, let me take a moment to ask for
    enhanced funding for the Byrne Competitive Grant Program. Through the
    Chairman's leadership, the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill
    established the competitive grant process for programs of national
    significance to prevent crime, improve the administration of justice,
    and assist victims of crime. The process is administered by the Office
    of Justice Programs (OJP) to those national programs that previously
    have received earmark funding under the Byrne discretionary program.
    However, the total amount of grant funding provided to all of the
    competing national programs was set at only $16 million in fiscal year
    2008. We believe that funding in the range of at least $65 million is
    the minimum necessary to permit a workable and effective competitive
    grant program.
        SEARCH supports the laudable goal of distributing funds on a
    competitive basis to those national programs that can demonstrate the
    most compelling uses for those funds. However, the outstanding
    leadership of the Subcommittee in creating this program is undermined
    by the harsh reality that $16 million is a woefully inadequate amount
    to provide funding for national programs to assist criminal justice and
    law enforcement efforts across the country.
        SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training, alone,
    received a $2 million grant from the Byrne Discretionary funds in
    2006--this would comprise one-eighth of the funds now available under
    the Byrne competitive grants. Dividing $16 million among dozens of
    national programs will result in drastic reductions in the level of
    funding provided to these programs or no funding at all for many
    deserving organizations.
        Indeed, for that reason we not only urge the Congress to fund the
    fiscal year 2009 competitive program at the $65 million level, but also
    to support emergency legislation that would increase the amount
    provided for the Byrne Competitive Grant program in fiscal year 2008 by
    approximately $50 million so that those national programs seeking to
    compete for these funds will have a chance at receiving a meaningful
    grant amount and, thereby, continuing to provide their vital criminal
    justice services. We have attached to our written testimony a letter
    from SEARCH and four other national programs supporting enhanced
    competitive grant funding.

    Use of Past Funding
        Returning now to SEARCH, in fiscal year 2007, SEARCH's National
    Technical Assistance and Training Program received a $2 million earmark
    out of the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program in the Office of Justice
    Programs. Through funding provided in fiscal year 2007, the SEARCH
    National Technical Assistance and Training Program reached out to
    nearly every state, as well as the District of Columbia.
        SEARCH's on-site technical assistance customarily includes helping
    a state or local law enforcement agency establish an automated justice
    information system; evaluate and plan for integration of existing
    information systems; or enhance, expand or implement a computerized
    criminal justice record system. A typical technical assistance activity
    takes approximately six weeks and is staffed by two individuals with
    the required expertise making three site visits--one for an initial
    consultation and data gathering, one to provide recommendations, and
    one for follow-up. Each of these technical assistance activities cost
    approximately $50,000.
        SEARCH has been recognized for its longstanding commitment to
    improving criminal history records at both the state and national
    levels. SEARCH software and related materials assist police and other
    law enforcement agencies in areas such as computer-aided dispatch,
    records management systems and mobile computers. In the post-9/11
    world, information sharing and communications interoperability is more
    important than ever to protect our families and the first-responders
    responsible for their safety in an emergency.
        For example, SEARCH is helping state policymakers and technical and
    operational stakeholders in numerous jurisdictions develop standards-
    based, high technology data sharing solutions so that critical law
    enforcement, court, corrections, prosecutor, and other justice agency
    information is rapidly shared to provide the foundation for accurate
    and appropriate decision-making. Simultaneously, SEARCH is actively
    focused on helping states develop privacy policies governing the
    collection of information in various state criminal justice systems to
    protect individual privacy and civil liberties in the growing
    information sharing environment.
        Meanwhile, SEARCH provides direct operational support to law
    enforcement in its cybercrime investigation program. SEARCH, for
    example, was integral in helping law enforcement identify and stop a
    suspect who was planning a shooting rampage at a local high school. A
    State Patrol officer contact SEARCH for immediate help after receiving
    reports about an individual making statements via the Internet that a
    local high school was to be the target of a shooting rampage. The State
    Police did not have the local resources or expertise to properly
    conduct an Internet investigation to identify the user. Using its
    knowledge of Internet Service Provider protocols and social networking
    Web sites, SEARCH located the individual's online profile on a
    networking site that displayed photos and videos of firearms and
    automatic weapons. The State Patrol was then able to gather the leads
    necessary to further their investigation. SEARCH performed a forensic
    capture of the individual's profile and videos, which were offered to
    the State Patrol.
        In other cybercrime assistance efforts, SEARCH has helped a number
    of police departments across the nation set up MySpace predator
    deterrent programs. The departments set up MySpace pages that encourage
    local youth to add the police department as a ``number one friend'' on
    the youths' MySpace Pages. This gives the police a prominent presence
    on the youth's page, and also enables the youth to quickly contact the
    police online if they receive inappropriate messages. This is just
    another example of how SEARCH helps law enforcement proactively work to
    protect their young citizens from Internet risks.
        Through SEARCH cybercrime training classes and technical workshops,
    investigators are taught methods to prevent, detect and investigate the
    rising tide of cybercrime, such as fraud, email threats, online
    stalking and child exploitation. In one-on-one work with law
    enforcement investigators and prosecutors, SEARCH provides immediate
    operational assistance and critical operational guidance to
    practitioners on emerging technological issues in high-tech crime, such
    as assisting a local law enforcement agency obtain evidence from cell
    phones seized at the scene of a gang-related drive-by shooting.

    Intended Use of Funding From Fiscal Year 2009
        For fiscal year 2009, SEARCH is requesting $2 million for the
    National Technical Assistance and Training Program. If SEARCH is
    provided with the requested funding, SEARCH intends to utilize the
    funds to address goals in both the information sharing and high-tech
    crime investigation aspects of the program. In the information sharing
    space, SEARCH intends to: (1) support through training and technical
    assistance the adoption of national law enforcement and public safety
    information technology standards; (2) contribute to the development of
    new and emerging law enforcement and public safety standards; (3)
    develop specific information sharing requirements for the re-entry of
    prisoners into society following incarceration; and (4) improve
    agencies' ability to measure and manage their information sharing
    initiatives. SEARCH also intends to use the funds to train law
    enforcement investigators in high tech crime investigation, including
    training and education on cybercrime.

    Conclusion
        Congressional support for the SEARCH National Technical Assistance
    and Training Program is vital. The federal investment of $2 million can
    be leveraged many times over by contributing to the ability of state
    and local criminal justice agencies to provide timely, accurate and
    compatible information throughout the nation.
        On behalf of SEARCH, its governors' appointees, and the thousands
    of criminal justice officials who participate in the SEARCH network and
    who benefit from SEARCH's efforts, I thank you for your time. It has
    been a pleasure appearing here today.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of The Florida State University

        Summary of Request: Florida State University is requesting
    $3,000,000 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) Air Research Laboratory (ARL) Account to fund the Center for
    Vapor Mercury in the Atmosphere.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
    Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
    Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
    Florida State University.
        Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
    Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The
    University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
    studies, exemplary research, and top-quality undergraduate programs.
    Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
    teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
    a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
    faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
    including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
    of the National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do
    excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
    work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
    results of their research. Florida State University had over $190
    million this past year in research awards.
        Florida State University attracts students from every state in the
    nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed
    to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
    which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
    Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. Since
    2005, FSU students have won more than 30 nationally competitive
    scholarships and fellowships including 2 Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman
    Scholarships, Goldwater, Jack Kent Cooke and 18 Fulbright Fellowships.
        At Florida State University, we are proud of our successes as well
    as our emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public research
    universities.
        Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interest today.
        Mercury is one of two very toxic trace elements known to be best
    transported through the atmosphere. Local, regional, and global
    distributions of gaseous elemental mercury are unknown even though
    vapor mercury is the most important source of anthropogenic mercury to
    the atmosphere. Most U.S. mercury emissions occur in the northeast yet
    most mercury deposits fall on Florida and the southeastern coastal
    zone. Patterns of mercury in local rainfall can be interpreted as
    either ``local source'' or ``long-distance source'' and are thus non-
    diagnostic. These enormous gaps in scientific understanding undermine
    public policy initiatives to develop strategies to protect natural
    environments and human health and to find appropriate energy solutions
    to our national power and transportation needs.
        To this end, FSU is prepared to lead a Southeastern Mercury
    Consortium to study the large-scale sources and fates of atmospheric
    mercury. This consortium will be a partnership between NOAA's Air
    Resources Lab (ARL), Florida State University (FSU) and Georgia
    Institute of Technology. ARL's mercury research group has pioneered
    ground and airborne measurements and models of atmospheric mercury.
    FSU's Oceanography Department and Isotope Geochemistry Programs in the
    National High Magnetic Field Lab excel in ultra-trace element chemistry
    and isotopes--including mercury--in global atmospheric and aquatic
    environments. Georgia Tech's Schools of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences
    and Civil & Environmental Engineering have extensive regional and
    global programs in urban photochemistry, ``tailpipe'' and ``smoke
    stack'' gases, and global atmospheric mapping of reactive trace gases
    and aerosols from research airplanes and satellites. We will
    concentrate on the two most critical pieces of the puzzle--gaseous
    elemental mercury and reactive gaseous mercury. This effort will fill
    the gap we now have in the understanding of mercury vapors, so that we
    can ensure safe power and transportation to our citizens.
        Mr. Chairman, this project is extremely important and I appreciate
    your consideration.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Educational Association of University Centers

        Mr. Chairman, as President of the Educational Association of
    University Centers, which is the advocacy organization for universities
    in the EDA University Center Program, I am pleased to offer this
    testimony regarding fiscal year 2009 funding for this important program
    administered by the Economic Development Administration at the
    Department of Commerce. On behalf of our the network of universities
    across the United States that are participating in the program, our
    appropriation request for the EDA University Center Program for fiscal
    year 2009 is $12.5 million. The EDA Technical Assistance line item is
    currently funded at about $9 million annually for the national EDA
    University Center Program.
        As you know, the EDA University Center Program is a network of
    centers located at universities and colleges in most states. The
    program has operated for over 30 years as the only federally funded
    program specifically designed to link the higher education system in
    the United States with local and regional economic development
    organizations, local units of government, private sector companies,
    non-profits and regional organizations. There are about 55 centers in
    the program currently.
        Through this program, the resources, research, expertise,
    experience and capabilities of the higher education system are made
    accessible to help capitalize on opportunities, address problems and
    overcome economic challenges for areas suffering economic dislocation
    and distress. Each University Center reflects the character and
    capacities of the sponsoring institution and tailors its portfolio of
    programs, projects and services based on the individual institution and
    the needs of the service region that center serves.
        Each EDA University Center currently receives approximately
    $100,000 to $150,000 per year. The program has been funded at the same
    level for over a decade. The additional funding that is requested would
    enable current University Centers to be funded at a level of $250,000
    per year, which combined with the required local match of an amount
    equal to the federal share, would create program budgets of $500,000
    per University Center. The nation's universities are a vital component
    of the economic development capacity of the United States and this
    increased funding will yield a strong return on the investment.
        The University Center Program and the University Centers that form
    it operate in conformance with the EDA's investment principles. That
    means that programs and projects undertaken by the university centers
    include: being market-based and results-driven; having strong
    organizational leadership; advancing productivity, innovation and
    entrepreneurship; addressing medium to long-term needs; anticipating
    economic changes; fostering economic diversification; and including a
    high degree of local commitment. To those ends, the University Center
    program nationwide participates in economic development activities that
    help leverage hundreds of millions of dollars in private sector
    investment.
        A fundamental objective of the University Center Program is to
    focus program activities on areas of economic distress and to conduct
    projects and programs that lead to the creation and retention of high-
    wage, high-skill, and high-demand jobs. The types of activities
    undertaken by university centers include direct technical assistance.
    That assistance can take the form of direct assistance to private
    sector companies. A typical example of a technical assistance project
    would be working with a manufacturer to develop a prototype of a new
    product, analyze the potential market for the product, and help
    commercialize and launch the new product. The end result will hopefully
    lead to increases in production capacity within the firm, resulting in
    new job creation.
        University centers also often have the capacity and the mission to
    conduct applied research to inform economic development initiatives.
    Before a significant financial investment is made in an economic
    development project, due diligence must be performed to determine if
    there is a high probability for a significant return on investment in
    terms of jobs created and retained, as well as indirect jobs created
    and retained in the supply chain and in local and regional commercial
    and retail businesses. Typical projects that would require applied
    research to determine potential for success are industrial parks,
    technology parks, business incubators and accelerators, and public
    works projects to improve infrastructure, such as potable water
    treatment plants, wastewater treatment, access roads and other
    projects. Research such as market and feasibility analyses, business
    plans, operating plans and other types of analyses serves to strengthen
    projects and to help ensure that investments are directed toward
    projects with the highest potential to deliver in economic terms.
        University centers also conduct economic analyses to identify
    industry clusters that exist or that have the potential to be created.
    Industry clusters are private sector companies that exist in a defined
    geographic region and that have similar characteristics that can enable
    individual firms to create competitive advantages through relationships
    that often include pooled procurement activities or supply chain
    linkages, where firms provide raw materials, components or other
    products or services to companies that are using raw materials to
    produce value-added products or that create products by combining
    components to produce a finished item for delivery to customers. By
    conducting the research to identify companies with potential affinity
    and the potential for benefit from economies of scale, jobs may be
    created or retained and individual companies made more competitive and
    profitable. These efforts also can strengthen local and regional
    economies by developing a local supply chain and producing products
    that are exported from the region, thereby bringing revenue into the
    region from external sources.
        An example of university center activity is the initiative has been
    undertaken by the University Center program at the University of
    Michigan, which I oversee, along with our partners at Cleveland State
    University, Ohio University and Purdue University. Our work addresses
    the adverse impacts on communities in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana that
    are experiencing major manufacturing plant closures. The university
    center programs at these universities are collaborating to deliver
    services to the impacted communities and to help the communities to
    access resources from a range of federal agencies, state agencies and
    non-profit organizations. The EDA University Centers in each
    institution are active collaborating to provide student, staff and
    faculty support for the affected communities in their respective
    states.
        The tools that have been created to help these communities develop
    economic recovery plans include a resource guide to Federal, State and
    Non-profit agencies and organizations that can help communities in
    economic distress and experiencing sudden and severe economic
    dislocation. Communities also receive a Regional and Community Profile
    that contains critical information, such as key infrastructure,
    transportation corridor information, workforce characteristics,
    demographic information, and that helps identify core competencies and
    competitive advantages of communities and regions. A ``Strategic
    Planning for Economic Recovery Workbook'' helps to facilitate an
    accelerated strategic planning process that takes place over a period
    of 4-6 weeks and leads to a set of implementation projects to address
    economic, community and social needs in the communities and regions
    that are adversely impacted.
        After the community stakeholders have become organized and identify
    critical needs, the program convenes a Community Stakeholder Workshop
    that brings Program Representatives from Federal and State agencies to
    present information about their programs for distressed communities and
    to meet one-on-one with stakeholders representing a wide range of
    economic and community development organizations, social service
    agencies, local elected officials and units of governments that are
    qualified to receive funding.
        Another example of the wide range of University Center Program
    assistance activities is a project conducted by the University of
    Pennsylvania EDA University Center. The South Central Workforce
    Investment Area of Pennsylvania created a Department of Defense (DOD)
    Industry Partnership to strengthen the region's defense industry
    through targeted skills training. Penn State University's Pennsylvania
    Technical Assistance Program (PennTAP) managed the development of this
    Partnership. This Partnership grew out of a state-funded economic
    development initiative, Job Ready PA, which builds partnerships to more
    effectively respond to the workforce needs of targeted industries.
        The Industry Partnership is comprised of representatives from
    regional DOD commands and activities, the private contractors
    supporting those activities, and regional education institutions and
    training providers. The Partnership acts as a workforce intermediary,
    connecting the workers and contractors with the educational
    infrastructure by creating industry-driven training programs in
    response to identified skill gaps targeting three categories of
    workers: DOD personnel; civilian contractors providing both
    infrastructure as well as technical and mission support services; and
    DOD systems manufacturers and parts and component suppliers.
        Every University Center Program across the United States has many
    examples of terrific project and program activities that have greatly
    contributed to the health of regional and local economies and that have
    addressed economic distress.
        The economic security, national security and global competitiveness
    of our nation are increasingly bound with the higher education system
    of colleges and universities in America. The economy of our nation is
    in a period of transformation from a primarily industrial-based economy
    to a post-industrial economy. This transformation is creating enormous
    challenges as jobs are lost in some sectors and regions, and jobs are
    created in other sectors and regions. It is essential that the higher
    education system play an engaged and proactive role in the nation's
    economy.
        The EDA University Center Program is the primary federal program to
    ensure that that role is continual and successful. It is for that
    reason that the funding for this critical program be continued with the
    increase that is requested. Because it is a national program, no single
    state, region or economic sector gains at the expense of any other
    region or sector. I thank you for your attention to this issue and hope
    that this request will be approved.
                                     ______

    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 2008. As the President and CEO of the National Federation
    of Community Broadcasters, I speak on behalf of 250 community radio
    stations and related individuals and organizations across the country
    including many new Low Power FM stations. NFCB is the sole national
    organization representing this group of stations, which provide
    independent local service in the smallest communities and the 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 ongoing 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.
        Community Radio supports $30 million in funding for the Public
    Telecommunications Facilities Program in fiscal year 2009. Federal
    funding 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 those 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 existing public stations can continue to broadcast
    high quality programming. PTFP funding is critical to ensuring public
    radio's readiness to provide life-saving information to communities in
    the event of local disasters, as we have seen during weather
    emergencies in the past 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 ongoing
    program will be continued, and that there will be additional financial
    resources available to help cover the cost of improving the emergency
    infrastructure of public broadcasting stations. This additional funding
    is considered an urgent need if community stations are to withstand and
    continue broadcasting through extreme weather or other emergency
    situations. In addition, increased funding is necessary to assist the
    conversion of public radio and television to a digital format, which is
    particularly important when 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 funding source available to
    help get new stations on the air and 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
    developing their own stations which provide local information and
    emergency notifications.
        Funding from PTFP has been essential to keep public radio stations
    on the air by funding the replacement of equipment, often items that
    have been in use for 20 or more years. The program is administered
    carefully to be certain 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 period of time in use. PTFP has also
    helped bring public radio service to rural areas where it is not
    otherwise 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
    Low Power FM installations that broadcast very locally.
        Federal funding is particularly critical to stations broadcasting
    to rural and underserved audiences which have limited potential for
    fundraising due to 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 must be prepared to provide continuing
    service during emergency situations. As we saw during the severe storms
    and devastating hurricanes of the last few years, radio is the most
    effective medium for informing a community of weather forecasts,
    traffic issues, services available, evacuations, etc. Since everyone
    has access to a radio and they are portable and battery operated, a
    radio is the first source for this critical information. Radio stations
    therefore must have emergency power at both their studios and their
    transmitter in order to provide this service.
        The National Federation of Community Broadcasters supports funding
    for the conversion to digital broadcasting in 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 keep up with the market. The
    digital standard for radio has been approved and over 365 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. Currently 117 stations are
    providing 153 streams of programming. The development of additional
    digital audio channels will potentially more than double the service
    that public radio can provide, particularly to unserved and underserved
    communities.
        Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. If the
    Subcommittee has any questions or needs to follow up on any of the
    points expressed above, please contact the National Federation of
    Community Broadcasters at www.nfcb.org.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Astronomical Society

        I appreciate the opportunity to comment on NASA's 2009 budget from
    my perspective as President of the American Astronomical Society (AAS).
        The AAS believes that the President's fiscal year 2009 request of
    $17.6 billion is the bare minimum necessary to meet the agency's many
    challenges--from the reinvention of manned spaceflight, to the agency's
    many scientific missions in Earth Science, Heliophysics, Astrophysics,
    and Planetary science.
        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 recent years, 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.
        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. A new mission is now on its way to Pluto.
    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.
        In addition to contributing greatly to our knowledge and
    understanding of the universe, NASA continues its long history of
    contributing to the country's high technology economy via spin-offs
    from it science programs. Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images form one
    of the key databases behind GoogleSky bringing state-of-the-art imagery
    of the Universe into a tool now available to anyone, anywhere in the
    world with a computer (http://www.google.com/educators/
    spacetools.html). NASA's leadership brings high visibility to U.S.
    science and technology achievements and attracts young people to these
    fields.
        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.
        While we enjoy a generous flow of data from past and current space
    telescopes, we are looking forward to new telescopes and new scientific
    challenges in the next decade. The astronomical community, under the
    leadership of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is preparing for
    the commencement of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey that
    is carried out once every ten years. This is an opportunity to look
    forward toward the future of space astrophysics in the context of a
    broad, national astronomy and astrophysics program. The next Decadal
    Survey will provide guidance for federal investment in the next
    generation of ground and space-based telescopes.
        This priority-setting exercise has been the key ingredient in the
    success of U.S. astronomy and astrophysics for the past five decades.
    It is very important for the health of NASA's astrophysics program that
    we conduct an orderly evaluation of concepts across the full spectrum
    of astrophysics missions and wavelengths. To emphasize this point, the
    American Astronomical Society issued this statement in January 2008:

        ``The American Astronomical Society and each of its five divisions
    strongly endorse community-based priority setting as a fundamental
    component in the effective federal funding of research. Broad community
    input is required in making difficult decisions that will be respected
    by policy makers and stake-holders. The decadal surveys are the premier
    examples of how to set priorities with community input. Other National
    Academy studies, standing advisory committees, senior reviews, and town
    hall meetings are important components. Mid-decade adjustments should
    also be open to appropriate community input. Pleadings outside this
    process for specific Congressional language to benefit projects or
    alter priorities are counterproductive and harm science as a whole. The
    American Astronomical Society opposes all attempts to circumvent the
    established and successful community-based priority-setting processes
    currently in place.''

        Recognizing the current challenging budget climate, in which
    federal non-security, discretionary spending is severely constrained,
    the current NASA budget for science is nonetheless cause for concern.
    Specifically, I am concerned about the overall drop in funding for
    Astrophysics from $1.363 billion in fiscal year 2008 to a proposed
    $1.162 billion in fiscal year 2009 (a decline of 14.7 percent). The
    budget is projected to remain flat thereafter.
        Using NASA's new-start inflation index, this forecast is a
    reduction of $423 million (31 percent) for fiscal year 2013 in real
    buying power over that for fiscal year 2008. This decrease is proposed
    to occur during an era of significant new astrophysics discoveries with
    observatories such as the JWST and with the expected exciting
    recommendations from the Decadal Survey.
        The fundamental issue is that NASA is under-funded for its overall
    mission and received no extra funds to help with the recovery of the
    Columbia disaster. This, in turn, creates budgetary stress for all of
    the Directorates including Science. In my view, this is the key problem
    that must be addressed by the Congress and the next Administration.
        The AAS therefore recommends that Congress fund NASA Science by 2.9
    percent over the fiscal year 2009 level. This modest increase over the
    President's fiscal year 2009 request will help maintain balance within
    the science portfolio, which is critical to our community. This
    increase is also the same increase as proposed for the top-line NASA
    budget. Small missions and research grants to individual investigators
    must also be supported. 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. The AAS also recommends a one-time supplement of $1
    billion to help allay expenses associated with the Columbia disaster
    and the Shuttle return to flight.
        Finally, the AAS strongly encourages the Administration and
    Congress to uphold 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 Nature Conservancy

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer the recommendations of The
    Nature Conservancy (Conservancy) on the fiscal year 2009 budget for the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Conservancy
    urges the Committee to provide appropriations for NOAA at or
    approaching $4.5 billion, as recommended by the Friends of NOAA
    Coalition. This funding level for NOAA would allow expanded ocean
    conservation, restoration, and management programs; increased research
    and education activities; and provide critical improvements in
    infrastructure (satellites, ships, high performance computers,
    facilities) and data management. More specifically, The Nature
    Conservancy supports the following funding levels for the following
    programs:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal Year
                                                   2009         Fiscal Year
          Line Office, Account, Program         President's      2009 TNC
                                                  Budget      Recommendation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Ocean Service:
        Operations, Research, and
         Facilities:
            Regional Collaboration..........           5              10
            Coral Reef Program..............          25.9            30.5
            Response and Restoration Base,             9.3             9.3
             Damage Assessment, Remediation,
             and Restoration Program (DARRP)
            Estuary Restoration Program.....           1.2             4
        Procurement, Acquisition, and                 15              60
         Construction: Coastal and Estuarine
         Land Conservation Program..........
    National Marine Fisheries Service:
        Operations, Research, and
         Facilities:
            Community-based Restoration               13              23
             Program........................
            Open Rivers Initiative..........           7              12
            Protected Species Research &                .990           5
             Management, Cooperation with
             States.........................
    National Environmental Satellite Data &             .737            .737
     Information Service: Operations,
     Research, and Facilities: Coral Reef
     Monitoring.............................
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund....          35              90
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Conservancy works to identify priorities for coastal and marine
    conservation through ecoregional plans. We identify present and likely
    future threats to biological diversity and then identify appropriate
    strategies for conservation. At more than one hundred marine sites
    around the world, the Conservancy has used a variety of strategies for
    conservation including habitat restoration, removal of invasive
    species, coastal land acquisition, private conservation of submerged
    lands, 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; at every site
    multiple conservation approaches that take into account the biological,
    socioeconomic, and political circumstances are needed.
        NOAA is an important partner to the Conservancy in many aspects of
    our conservation work:
      --We work with NOAA's programs that support site-based conservation
            and restoration activities of coastal and marine systems.
            Programs such as Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation,
            Community-based Restoration, Open Rivers Initiative, and the
            Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund are excellent examples of
            practical, community-oriented approaches to conservation of
            coastal and marine resources. These programs should be
            expanded.
      --Our chapters routinely partner with NOAA programs that support
            management of marine and coastal ecosystems. The National
            Marine Sanctuary Program, the National Estuarine Research
            Reserve System, the Coastal Zone Management Program, the Coral
            Reef Program, the Marine Protected Areas Center, and fisheries
            and protected species management programs, are all valuable
            partners on Conservancy projects and should be funded robustly.
      --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 partnership-oriented approach to providing
            information and technical assistance to states, local
            governments, other federal agencies, and the private sector to
            inform decision-making.
      --NOAA's contributions to state and local implementation and
            education programs help ensure that the human capacity exists
            to address environmental management issues at the necessary
            scale. The Committee should provide funding for staff capacity
            to provide technical assistance, efficiently manage grants and
            programs, and help to measure effectiveness.
        The Conservancy highly values the contributions these NOAA programs
    make to sustaining healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems and we
    encourage the Committee provide significant funding for them. In
    particular, we would like to offer our recommendations regarding a
    specific set of programs that support conservation and restoration.
    NOAA has demonstrated significant 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:

    Habitat Restoration
        Community-based Restoration Program ($23 million).--Currently this
    program, with its exceptional track record since 1996, is able to fund
    only about 15 percent of the proposals it receives. Additional funds
    would be well-spent.
        Open Rivers Initiative ($12 million).--There are hundreds of
    thousands of small obsolete barriers on rivers and streams across the
    United States that block fish passage and restrict access to important
    habitat. This Initiative is part of a multi-agency commitment to
    address this problem.
        Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP)
    ($9.3 million).--Thousands of oil spills and hazardous waste sites
    contaminate coastal and estuarine areas. DARRP uses a collaborative
    process to respond to pollution events, assess injuries, and work with
    responsible parties to restore natural trust resources. Through this
    program NOAA has secured nearly $450 million in settlements for
    restoration projects over the last 15 years. Additional funding is
    necessary for NOAA to continue to properly respond to spills, conduct
    initial environmental assessments, and work to resolve each settlement.
        Estuary Restoration Program ($4 million).--The Estuary Restoration
    Act (ERA), as reauthorized by the Water Resources Development Act of
    2007, sets a goal to restore one million acres of estuary habitat by
    2010. The Act encourages coordination among all levels of government,
    and engages the unique strengths of the public, nonprofit, and private
    sectors. The ERA authorizes $4 million for NOAA, including $2.5 million
    for on-the-ground restoration projects and $1.5 million for maintenance
    of restoration project monitoring data.

    Protected Species Conservation
        Cooperation with the States ($5 million).--Through this program,
    authorized under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act, NMFS provides
    grants to States to support conservation actions that contribute to
    recovery or benefit listed species, recently de-listed species, and
    candidate species that reside within that State. A comparable program
    in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been successful in funding
    activities that contribute to the recovery of listed species under FWS
    jurisdiction. With the exception of jointly managed species (e.g.
    Atlantic salmon), activities related to NMFS jurisdiction species are
    not eligible for funding under the FWS program. While substantial
    funding has been directed to Pacific salmon, there are few resources
    available to support proactive conservation efforts for the other 30
    species for which NMFS has sole or joint management responsibility.
        Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ($90 million).--The
    Conservancy strongly supports $90 million for the Pacific Coast Salmon
    Recovery Fund (PCSRF). PCSRF has funded hundreds of successful on the
    ground salmon conservation efforts and is a critical state, tribal, and
    local complement to federal salmon recovery and management efforts. We
    are pleased that NOAA is moving towards a more merit-based allocation
    of funds focused on activities to recover and protect listed and at-
    risk salmon populations. However, we are greatly concerned about the
    dramatic decline in funding for the program, from $89 million in fiscal
    year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 to $35 million in the President's fiscal
    year 2009 request.

    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
        Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) ($60
    million).--The Nature Conservancy supports funding CELCP at $60 million
    for fiscal year 2009. 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 and fiscal
    year 2008 budgets and the pent-up demand left over from low funding
    levels in those years. We support a competitive process to award CELCP
    funding. However, for a competitive process to be successful, funding
    for the program needs to accommodate a greater percentage of the
    overall demand for coastal acquisition projects.

    Coral Reef Conservation
        Coral Reef Conservation Program ($30.5 million).--The Conservancy
    continues to work through 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. 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.
        Coral Reef Monitoring ($737,000).--This line item is an important
    part of the Coral Reef Program, but is requested by the Administration
    through the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information
    Service (NESDIS). The President's budget requests $737,000 for this
    modest but effective program known as ``Coral Reef Watch.'' Whether
    funded in NESDIS or consolidated with the Coral Reef Program funding in
    NOS, we recommend that $737,000 be included in addition to the $30.5
    million referenced above.

    Regional Approaches to Ocean and Coastal Issues
        Regional Collaboration ($10 million).--For the second year, the
    Administration's budget requests $5 million to help implement the Gulf
    of Mexico Governors' Action Plan. The Conservancy thanks the Committee
    for their support and appropriation of this funding in fiscal year 2008
    and urges the Committee to provide an additional $5 million of funding
    in 2009 to support implementation of regional collaborations in the
    Northeast and the West Coast, as well as the Governor's Alliance in the
    Gulf of Mexico. As states come together to form these collaborations,
    funding should be made available to address issues at the regional
    scale. As such, we also recommend including this funding in the budget
    under the title or ``Regional Collaborations'' rather than ``Gulf of
    Mexico Regional Collaboration.''
        Thank you for this opportunity to share with the Committee the
    Conservancy's priorities in NOAA's fiscal year 2009 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 Emily Woglom at 703-841-5374 or via email at ewoglom@tnc.org,
    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 more than 30 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.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Trail King Industries

        On behalf of Trail King Industries, major trailer manufacturer and
    employer of 900 people, with plants located in West Fargo, North
    Dakota, Mitchell, South Dakota and in Brookville, Pennsylvania, I would
    like to thank the Committee for allowing our organization to submit
    this testimony for the record. I am writing to respectfully request
    that the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program be
    provided the authorized $122 million within the fiscal year 2009
    Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
    This requested level of funding for 2009 was provided for in the
    recently enacted America COMPETES Act. As you know, the Hollings
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a program within the
    Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
    a program authorized to improve competitiveness of America's
    manufacturing community.
        The MEP is one of the most successful partnerships in the country.
    In addition to public support, a value proposition to improve
    manufacturer's global competitiveness is supported by those companies
    who receive benefit. In South Dakota, the Dakota MEP provides
    assistance to companies in continuous improvement, innovation,
    strategic growth, technology and workforce development--all major needs
    of our companies. Last year, we were able to pilot a unique
    Manufacturing ``Boot Camp'' for unemployed, with the Dakota MEP.
        As a Dakota MEP Director, I would also like to report that the
    average company benefits and impacts realized in the Dakota MEP
    improvement work with manufacturers mirrors the national MEP average at
    $1.4 million per engagement. These benefits have been realized by
    manufacturers who've partnered with Dakota MEP over the past six years.
        Manufacturing continues to diversify and grow the economies of the
    Dakotas. It currently is 10 percent of the gross state product in North
    Dakota and 11 percent in South Dakota. The industry has nearly 1,900
    firms employing 69,000 in the Dakotas exporting over $2 billion.
    Manufacturing brings new wealth to our country, our states and
    communities which, in turn, generate other economic activity and
    opportunities.
        Manufacturing must remain one of our country's economic strengths
    and the MEP is an invaluable program to help the industry better
    compete. Without unwavering strong federal support, the MEP will be
    unable to maintain its mission of serving America's small
    manufacturers' increasing needs. At a time when our economic strength
    and global competitiveness are national priorities, the MEP continues
    to be a wise investment. We respectfully request that you appropriate
    $122 million for the MEP in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
                                    Research

        I submit this written testimony for the record of the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    Science, and Related Agencies, on behalf of the University Corporation
    for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). UCAR is a 71-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.
        We are reminded on almost a daily basis that the world faces
    significant and profound environmental challenges. Yet at a time when
    the need has never been greater, we are faced with decreasing
    investments in real terms for the National Science Foundation (NSF),
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These are key
    agencies needed to provide the necessary observations, science,
    prediction models, and information that policy- and decision-makers
    need to respond effectively to short-term threats from weather hazards
    and to plan and prepare for the long-term future of the United States
    as we move into an uncharted climate. To meet both short- and long-term
    challenges the nation must support Earth sciences and applications in
    NSF, NASA and NOAA. I urge the Members to support the fiscal year 2009
    request of $6.84 billion for NSF at a minimum, $4.583 billion for
    NASA's Science Mission Directorate, and $4.5 billion for NOAA overall.
        The atmospheric and Earth sciences community appreciates the
    difficult choices Appropriators were forced to make in the fiscal year
    2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, but remains concerned about the
    negative consequences of not investing now in science. We appreciate
    Congress' support for the enactment last year of the America COMPETES
    Act and urge the Appropriations Committee to follow through with fiscal
    year 2009 funding for NSF, NASA, and NOAA that reflects the concern
    demonstrated in that legislation for the health of this country's
    scientific programs.

    National Science Foundation (NSF)
        While we lost a year with nearly flat NSF funding for fiscal year
    2008, this critical science agency can get back on track to planned
    accelerated research levels by receiving appropriated funds at the
    level of the authorized amount of $7.32 billion in the America COMPETES
    ACT. This would provide a return on investment that would benefit
    citizens in additional research funded for the short and long term
    health of the country. I urge the Members to support the President's
    overall fiscal year 2009 request of at least $6.84 billion for the NSF,
    and within NSF, the request of $5.59 billion at least for Research and
    Related Activities (R&RA), the heart of NSF's scientific enterprise.
        Geosciences Directorate (GEO).--In this most critical moment for
    the health of our planet and 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 substantial, with estimates of the
    component of the U.S. economy exposed to risks associated with weather
    and climate variability alone reaching $3 trillion annually. While we
    support the increase for NSF's GEO Directorate in the fiscal year 2009
    budget request, we urge the Committee to once again reiterate, as it
    did last year, that all disciplines of science, including the
    geosciences, should be considered integral to the American
    Competitiveness Initiative and urge even stronger increases to include
    GEO on the ``doubling track.'' I urge the Members to support the
    President's fiscal year 2009 request of $848.67 million, at a minimum,
    for the Geosciences Directorate, and within GEO, to provide the
    President's request of $240.8 million at least 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.
        Office of Cyberinsfrastructure (OCI).--As stated in the fiscal year
    2009 request, OCI ``supports research, development, acquisition and
    operation of advanced shared and connecting infrastructure that enables
    otherwise unrealizable advances in 21st century science and engineering
    research and education.'' The modeling of the Earth's atmosphere is one
    of these ``otherwise unrealizable advances.'' I urge the Members to
    support the fiscal year 2009 request of $220.08 million, an 18.8
    percent increase over fiscal year 2008 that recognizes
    cyberinfrastructure's key role.

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
        NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) has a central role in
    understanding our planet. Yet despite increasing policy-driven demand
    for information and analysis the funding in this area is not keeping up
    with needed support for observing systems and research. I appreciate
    the Administration's focus on the especially critical Earth Science
    account in the fiscal year 2009 request. But NASA's overall role in
    this country's scientific endeavor is so strategic and central to our
    well being that SMD should be one of this nation's highest priorities.
    I urge the Members to increase the Science Mission Directorate funding
    levels to at least $4.583 billion, $142 million above the fiscal year
    2009 request and sufficient to keep pace with 3 percent inflation.
        With accelerating climate change, there are few NASA
    responsibilities more important than monitoring the Earth's
    environment. Within NASA's SMD account, Earth Science does relatively
    well at $1.367 billion, a 6.8 percent increase, but much less well than
    in recommendations of the National Research Council's Earth and Science
    Applications From Space (Decadal Survey). Planned out-year funding
    absolutely falls short. It is encouraging to see the Decadal Survey
    being used as a benchmark for the order and timing of missions.
    However, falling behind schedule increases the risk of losing
    continuity in important observational data, which presents serious
    calibration issues. I urge the Members to plan for future investments
    of over $2 billion annually as called for by the Decadal Survey,
    whereas the fiscal year 2009 request includes out-year funding of
    approximately $1.3 billion annually.
        NASA's SMD programs that are in progress and others that are yet to
    be implemented will enable us to 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. SMD ``space weather'' programs, part
    of the Living with a Star Program, will also protect space vehicles,
    astronauts, and satellites from the devastating radiation of solar
    storms. These programs are critical to the health of our economy, to
    the health of the Earth, and to our national security. Once again, I
    urge the Members 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)
        As stated in the Friends of NOAA Coalition letter of March 12,
    2008, ``Assuming an annual inflationary rate of 3 percent, and using
    fiscal year 2005 as a baseline, the agency's budget would need to be
    $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2009 just to remain level in constant
    dollars.'' It is obviously impossible for NOAA to keep up with
    expanding responsibilities while its budget effectively shrinks. The
    atmospheric sciences community appreciates the Administration's request
    of $4.1 billion for fiscal year 2009, but this increase of 5.5 percent
    over fiscal year 2008 will primarily augment the satellite programs
    while others are diminished. The America COMPETES Act, signed into law
    last August, states that NOAA ``shall be a full participant in any
    interagency effort to promote innovation and economic competitiveness
    through near-term and long-term basic scientific research and
    development and the promotion of science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics education consistent with the agency mission, including
    authorized activities.'' NOAA has the potential to make much greater
    contributions, but the agency is struggling. There simply must be a
    better balance between NOAA's infrastructure, operations, and research
    funding, as well as effective management and organizational structure
    at all levels, for this agency to accomplish its mission.
        I urge the Members to support an appropriation of at least $4.5
    billion for NOAA in fiscal year 2009--a level recommended by the Senate
    for the past three fiscal years and endorsed by the multi-sector
    Friends of NOAA Coalition and Weather Coalition--and to do so while
    maintaining vital support for other portion's of the Subcommittee's
    research and development portfolio. While not sufficient to meet all of
    NOAA's current obligations, it would begin to alleviate pressures that
    have built up over many years and set a more realistic (although still
    inadequate) base for this agency to meet current and future obligations
    of national importance.
        Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).--Within OAR's
    Competitive Research Program request of $134.7 million, a small
    increase will support several climate and weather data related
    activities of great importance to the country and enable OAR to work
    more effectively with, and leverage from, the enormous base of
    expertise in the academic community. Within OAR Weather and Air Quality
    Research, the potentially substantial role of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    in filling very serious observational gaps will be examined, and
    hurricane forecast improvement will be pursued. The fiscal year 2009
    request moves the U.S. Weather Research Program from the National
    Weather Service back to OAR. This chronically underfunded program will
    fund THORpex, a multi-year international field experiment to improve
    two to ten-day forecasts, as well as experimental hurricane forecasting
    work. I urge the Members to support the fiscal year 2009 request of
    $372.2 million (Operations, Research and Facilities--ORF) for the
    Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
        National Weather Service (NWS).--Within NWS, UCAR supports the
    fiscal year 2009 program changes including support for weather data
    buoys to enhance hurricane and severe storm observations, developing
    enhanced fire weather modeling capability, and additional water vapor
    sensors that contribute to improved weather aviation services within
    the Integrated Upper Air Observing System. I urge the Members to
    support the fiscal year 2009 request of $930.7 million for the NWS.
        National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
    (NESDIS).--NESDIS receives an absolutely necessary increase for the
    geostationary satellite series, GOES-R. Any further delay or decrease
    in funding will cause additional program costs as well as interruption
    to the overall continuity of GOES comprehensive data coverage including
    atmospheric, oceanic, climatic, and solar observations. This would
    cause severe problems for the nation's weather forecasts and warnings,
    climatologic analysis and prediction, ecosystems management, and safe
    and efficient public and private transportation. The fiscal year 2009
    request cuts funding for the tri-agency National Polar-orbiting
    Operational Environmental Satellite (NPOESS) program, which we
    understand is a result of restructuring. We are extremely concerned
    about out-year funding for this critical program, but are pleased with
    the reinstatement of the development of two NPOESS climate sensors that
    were previously de-manifested, the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant
    Energy System (CERES) sensor and the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor
    (TSIS).
        Of additional concern is the nearly flat funding for NESDIS Data
    Centers. If the country is truly committed to renewing and capitalizing
    on its investment in Earth-observing systems, it must also invest in
    accessing, archiving and assessing the data gathered from these
    systems. The weather and climate community is concerned also that the
    President's request fails to begin initial planning for the CLARREO and
    GPSRO missions, as recommended in the NRC Decadal Survey. CLARREO and
    GPSRO provide critical measurements of Earth's and the sun's radiation,
    which are critical for climate, and temperature, water vapor, and
    electron density profiles for weather, climate, and space weather.
        I urge the Members to consider the NESDIS Procurement, Acquisition
    and Construction (PAC) account fiscal year 2009 request level of $1.24
    billion to be the base level for this line office; to examine the
    erosion of funding for the NESDIS Data Centers and appropriate for them
    an inflationary increase; to press the agency to begin planning for the
    CLARREO and GPSRO missions; and to continue to pursue solutions to this
    nation's critical Earth observing program, the infrastructural
    satellite component of which is going to cause NOAA's core programs to
    be undercut severely if additional resources or restructuring are not
    provided.
        National Ocean Service (NOS).--Ocean data are of great importance
    to the work of the atmospheric sciences community. Of particular
    interest are the efforts within NOS to manage hydrographic datasets
    more effectively and efficiently (Ping to Chart Infrastructure
    Streamlining), as well as the implementation as it was originally
    conceived, of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). There is
    great concern that years of report recommendations have not been heeded
    and that the original concept of a ``system of systems'' providing
    information on the current and future state of the oceans, informed by
    competitive research grants to provide the technologies and
    understanding required to build and improve a scientifically sound
    system, has been abandoned. I urge the Members to support data
    gathering efforts within the National Ocean Service, but to ensure that
    a competitive grants program be fully funded for the Integrated Ocean
    Observing System so that this valuable program may be appropriately
    structured to meet its societal goals.
        I sincerely thank the members of 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 Mitchell V. Voydat

        My name is Mitchell V. Voydat and I'm a private citizen
    highlighting the extreme urgency of appropriations that need to be
    earmarked for the continuation of two very successful, critical and
    important programs. The two programs are the Whale disentanglement
    program of the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies (PCCS), located
    in Provincetown, Massachusetts for the highly endangered species, the
    North Atlantic Right Whale and the Dolphin SMART program, for the wild
    bottlenose dolphin located in the Florida Keys National Marine
    Sanctuary. The North Atlantic Right Whale is a highly endangered
    species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act and both right
    whales and the bottlenose dolphin must be protected under the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the
    responsible agency for the protection of the North Atlantic Right Whale
    and the bottlenose dolphin.
        Let me explain the whale disentanglement program of PCCS.
        The main responsibility of the whale disentanglement program is
    freeing Right Whales from life-threatening entanglements in fishing
    gear. Without the necessary appropriations, there is a very, very high
    and very, very real possibility of North Atlantic Right Whales becoming
    entangled in life-threatening fishing gear, serious injury or death
    caused by the entanglement and extinction of the highly endangered
    species, because there are only approximately 350 North Atlantic Right
    Whales living today.
        The whale disentanglement program is world-renowned and the only
    one of its kind on the East Coast.
        The whale disentanglement program of PCCS have freed 89 Right Wales
    and five of these rescues were right whales who went on to have calves.
        Please help the PCCS secure the very necessary and urgent
    appropriations to continue its life savings services of freeing right
    whales from life-threatening entanglements in fishing gear.
        Let me explain the Dolphin SMART Program.
        A special area of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is
    home to a resident group of bottlenose dolphins. It is also where many
    businesses conduct dolphin tours in a small geographic area. This
    heightened amount of human activity in a small area may cause
    unnecessary stress to the local population by disrupting their natural
    behaviors. This prompted conservation agencies, including NOAA's
    National Marine Sanctuary Program and National Marine Fisheries
    Service, the Dolphin Ecology Project and the Whale and Dolphin
    Conservation Society, as well as local businesses and members of the
    public, to team up and develop a unique, multi-faceted program
    encouraging responsible viewing of wild dolphins and recognizing
    businesses that participated.
        When we approach wild dolphins too closely, move too quickly, or
    make too much noise, we increase the risk of disturbing their natural
    behaviors, such as migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding and
    sheltering.
        The Dolphin SMART mission is to promote responsible stewardship of
    wild dolphins inhabiting the Florida Keys Nation Marine Sanctuary.
        Program participation is for commercial businesses conducting and
    booking wild dolphin tours in the Florida Keys. The Dolphin SMART
    program offers participation incentives for businesses that follow the
    program criteria and educate their customers about the importance of
    minimizing wild dolphin harassment.
        What does Dolphin SMART mean?
        S--Stay at least 50 yards from dolphins.
        M--Move away cautiously if dolphins show signs of disturbance.
        A--Always put your engine in neutral when dolphins are near.
        R--Refrain from swimming with, touching or feeding wild dolphins.
        T--Teach others to be Dolphin SMART.
        Purpose of the Dolphin SMART Program:
      --Minimize the potential of wild dolphin harassment caused by
            commercial viewing vehicles.
      --Reduce expectations of wanting to closely interact with wild
            dolphins in a manner that may cause harassment.
      --Eliminate advertising that creates expectations of engaging in
            activities that may cause harassment.
      --Promote stewardship of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
        Upon successful completion of the program criteria, the training
    and evaluation, Dolphin SMART businesses receive materials recognizing
    them as active Dolphin SMART participants. Participants must complete
    an annual refresher training and evaluation to ensure active
    participation. Dolphin SMART participants can easily be identified by a
    flag or decal displayed on their vessel featuring the Dolphin SMART
    logo and current calendar year.
        Madam Chairman and Honorable U.S. Senators: As you can see, here
    are two very, very successful programs, but without earmarking the
    necessary funds to keep these programs running, without the Dolphin
    SMART program, human intervention will threaten, disrupt and destroy
    the natural behaviors of wild dolphins in the Florida Keys, and without
    the whale disentanglement program of PCCS, extinction of the North
    Atlantic Right Whale is very, very real and very certain.
        I want to thank Madam Chairman, the Honorable U.S. Senator from
    Maryland, Senator Mikulski, and the ranking member, the Honorable U.S.
    Senator from Alabama, Senator Shelby and all the Honorable Committee
    Members on the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science
    and related agencies for giving me the opportunity to submit my written
    testimony for these two very successful, critical and very important
    programs.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    American Astronomical Society, Prepared Statement of the.........   317
    American Chemical Society, Prepared Statement of the.............   234
    American Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the.........   235
    American Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   304
    American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statements of the.237, 239
    American Physiological Society, Prepared Statement of the........   240
    American Psychological Association, Prepared Statement of the....   277
    American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.....   271
    American Society of Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the..........   242
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   244
    American Society of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the..   262
    Association for Psychological Science, Prepared Statement of the.   268

    Bell Incorporated, Prepared Statement of.........................   247
    Bement, Dr. Arden L., Jr., Director, National Science Foundation,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   212

    California State Coastal Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the..   252
    Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   256
    Crary Industries Inc., Prepared Statement of.....................   260
    Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.......   242

    Dakota Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   310
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
      Questions Submitted by.......................................139, 198

    Educational Association of University Centers, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   314

    Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
      (FASEB), Prepared Statement of the.............................   285
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    95

    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   279
    Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Question
      Submitted by...................................................   211
    Griffin, Hon. Dr. Michael, Administrator, National Aeronautics
      and Space Administration.......................................    53
        Opening Statement of.........................................    57
        Prepared Statement of........................................    60
    Gutierrez, Hon. Carlos M., Secretary, Secretary of Commerce,
      Department of Commerce.........................................     1
        Opening statement of.........................................     6
        Prepared Statement of........................................     8

    Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the.   231
    Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of the.....   265
    International Fund for Animal Welfare, Prepared Statement of the.   298

    Killdeer Mountain Manufacturing, Prepared Statement of...........   282

    Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    91
    Lautenbacher, Vice Admiral Conrad, Jr., (U.S. Navy, Ret.), Under
      Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and
      Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
      Department of Commerce, Prepared Statement of..................   201
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................129, 196

    Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the.   291
    McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   166
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Statements of....................................1, 99, 171
        Questions Submitted by.................................26, 207, 218
        Statement of.................................................    53
    Mueller, Hon. Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of
      Investigation, Department of Justice...........................   171
        Prepared Statement of........................................   178
        Statement of.................................................   175
    Mukasey, Hon. Michael B., Attorney General, Department of Justice    99
        Prepared Statement of........................................   105

    National Association of Marine Laboratories, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   283
    National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
      Colleges (NASULGC), Prepared Statements of the...............248, 249
    National Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the.   288
    National Corn Growers Association, Prepared Statement of the.....   293
    National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   316
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.   295
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.   226

    Oceana, Prepared Statement of....................................   300
    Optoelectronics Industry Development Association, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   297

    Padgett Business Services, Prepared Statement of.................   306
    Phoenix International, Prepared Statement of.....................   306
    Population Association of America/Association of Population
      Centers, Prepared Statement of the.............................   254

    Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   307
    Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   222

    Sea Grant Association, Prepared Statement of the.................   274
    SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
      Statistics, Prepared Statement of..............................   311
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    55
        Questions Submitted by.............................36, 83, 138, 198
        Statements of...........................................3, 101, 173
    Society for Neuroscience, Prepared Statement of the..............   261
    Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.......   242
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Prepared Statement of........................................     6
        Questions Submitted by.................................49, 210, 221

    The Florida State University, Prepared Statement of..............   313
    The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of....................   319
    Trail King Industries, Prepared Statement of.....................   322

    United States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   229
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
      Statement of
      the............................................................   323

    Voydat, Mitchell V., Prepared Statement of.......................   326

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                                                                       Page

    CICEET...........................................................   211
    Coordination of Ocean Research...................................   209
    Fiscal Year:
        2007 Accomplishments.........................................   201
        2009 Budget Request Highlights...............................   204
    Fuel Costs.......................................................   210
    ``John C. Cobb'' Decommissioning.................................   210
    NPOESS: CERES and TSIS Sensors...................................   207
    Ocean Surface Vector Winds Data..................................   208
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.............................   211
    Vacancy Rates at the National Weather Service....................   209
    VIIRS Contractor Deficiencies....................................   207

                             Secretary of Commerce

    Additional:
        Committee Questions..........................................    26
        Costs for Census.............................................    40
    Census--2008 Dress Rehearsal and Handhelds.......................    26
    Colombia and Panama Shrimp:
        Activities...................................................    16
        Exports......................................................    16
    Data Security....................................................44, 45
    Department Information Systems...................................    47
    Digital Transition...............................................35, 50
    Economic Development.............................................    34
    Economic Development Administration..............................    13
        Funding......................................................    50
    Effect of FDCA Alternative.......................................    28
    Elimination of MEP Federal Funding...............................    35
    Endangered Species Listings in Alaska............................    50
    FDCA:
        Technical Requirements.......................................    27
        Technology...................................................    17
    Fish Protection Priorities.......................................    44
    Fisheries Research and Management Funding Levels.................    49
    Free Trade and Shrimp Imports....................................    42
    GOES-R:
        Contracts....................................................    31
        Cost and Schedule Goals......................................    44
        ``Cost-Plus'' Contract Option................................    31
        Key Decision Point...........................................    43
        Oversight....................................................    43
        Satellite Program............................................    21
        Total Program Cost...........................................    31
    Handheld Technical Requirements..................................    46
    Harris Contract Awards...........................................    28
    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers..............    42
    Lake Pontchartrain...............................................    48
    Management:
        Of Decennial Census..........................................    15
        Reform.......................................................28, 36
            For Satellite Programs...................................    22
            In NOAA Satellite Program................................    22
    MITRE Review June 2007...........................................    37
    MSRA Implementation--IUU.........................................    49
    NOAA:
        Fleet Modernization Plan.....................................    48
        In the Gulf of Mexico........................................    41
    NPOESS:
        Cost and Schedule Goals......................................    41
        Cross Track Infrared Sounder Issues..........................    41
        Launch Date..................................................    40
        Satellite Program............................................    20
        VIIRS:
            Contingency Planning.....................................    40
            Issues...................................................    40
    Other 2010 Decennial Contracts...................................    29
    Paper Non-Response Follow Up.....................................    39
    Patent Backlog...................................................    23
    Possible Supplemental Appropriation..............................    20
    Retaliatory Measures:
        Against EADS Airbus..........................................    12
        Following Ruling in EADS Airbus Case.........................    13
    Satellite Oversight During Administration Transition.............    30
    Subsidation of EADS Airbus Aircraft..............................    25
    Tanker Contract to EADS Airbus...................................    14
    Trade Dispute With EADS Airbus...................................    11
    2010 Decennial Effectiveness Rating..............................    36
    United States Patent and Trademark Office........................    31
    Use of Handhelds.................................................    39
    VIIRS and Ocean Color Requirements...............................    30
    Weather Infrastructure in the Southeast..........................    41

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

    Adam Walsh Act.................................................115, 116
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   129
    Bullet Lead......................................................   131
    Compliance of Current Communication Systems......................   128
    Corruption in Iraq...............................................   129
    Courthouse Renovations...........................................   151
    Cuts to State and Local Law Enforcement..........................   122
    Department of Justice:
        Agents.......................................................   140
        Funding......................................................   125
    E-mail and E-mail Retention......................................   132
    Explosives Database..............................................   114
    Fugitive Apprehension Program....................................   141
    Immigration Judges in Nashville..................................   105
    Information Regarding:
        A Terrorist Phone Call.......................................   120
        The Integrated Wireless Network..............................   128
    Judicial Security................................................   149
    Justice Department Employees.....................................   126
    Law Enforcement Communications...................................   153
    Monitorship Programs.............................................   118
    National Security: Protecting the American People by Preventing
      Terrorist Acts.................................................   106
    No-bid Contracts.................................................   118
    Office of Legal Council's Memo...................................   122
    Other............................................................   140
    Pay and Benefits Overseas........................................   161
    Pre-9/11 Phone Call..............................................   119
    Proposed Creation of a Database Under the Jurisdiction of the
      Office for Bombing Prevention/DHS With Information on
      Explosives.....................................................   115
    Radios...........................................................   127
    Sexual Predator Technology.......................................   126
    Southwest Border:
        Enforcement................................................140, 152
        Initiative...................................................   108
    Supporting Essential Federal Detention and Incarceration Programs   109
    Supporting our State, Local, and Tribal Partners in the Fight
      Against
      Crime..........................................................   110
    Telecommunication Carrier Compensation...........................   138
    Terrorist Watch List.............................................   111
    Tribal Justice Funding...........................................   139
    Unanswered Questions.............................................   132
    Violent Crime..................................................113, 117
    Wireless Communication Program...................................   154

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   196
    Bullet Lead......................................................   196
    Cyber Security Initiative........................................   189
    Domain and Operations............................................   178
    FBI Academy......................................................   189
    Fighting Crimes Against Children.................................   195
    Funding Gap......................................................   186
    Infrastructure...................................................   181
    Leveraging Technology............................................   180
    Mortgage:
        Case Resources...............................................   183
        Fraud........................................................   182
    Partnerships.....................................................   180
    Pay and Benefits Overseas........................................   198
    Render Safe Mission..............................................   185
    Sentinel.........................................................   192
    Shift of Criminal Agents to Counterterrorism.....................   187
    State and Local Violent Crime....................................   184
    Strategic Execution Team: Improvement of FBI's Intelligence
      Program........................................................   181
    Surveillance.....................................................   179
    Terrorist:
        Explosive Device Analytical Center...........................   188
        Watch List...................................................   194
    2009 Budget Request..............................................   178
    Tribal Justice Funding...........................................   198
    Unanswered Questions.............................................   197
    Workforce........................................................   180

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    Additional:
        Bridge Employment Efforts....................................    95
        Committee Questions..........................................    83
    Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate.........................    64
    Chairman's Closing Remarks.......................................    82
    Commercial Orbital Transportation Services.......................    76
    Cross-Agency Support.............................................    69
    Earth Observing Sensors..........................................    81
    Education........................................................    69
        Cuts.........................................................    84
    Enhanced Use Lease Authority.....................................    94
    EPSCoR and Space Grant funding...................................    84
    Exploration:
        Activities...................................................    86
        Systems Mission Directorate..................................    66
    Extending the Space Shuttle Lifetime.............................    74
    Financial Systems................................................    87
    Funding for Constellation Program................................    92
    Highlights of the NASA Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request...........    61
    Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-Proliferation Act (INKSNA)..........    76
    NASA Operations at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF)...........    91
    National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
      System (NPOESS)................................................    82
    Overall Science Budget...........................................    79
    Relying on Russian ``Soyuz'' Services............................    75
    Return to Flight.................................................    74
    Robotic Lunar Lander.............................................    83
    Science Mission Directorate......................................    62
    Small/Disadvantaged Business Utilization Efforts.................    92
    ``Soyuz'' Launch Capabilities....................................    76
    Space:
        Operations Mission Directorate...............................    67
        Shuttle Workforce Transition.................................    78
        Transportation System........................................    72
    10 Healthy Centers...............................................    85

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Alaska Region Research Vessel....................................   221
    America COMPETES Act Compliance..................................   214
    Climate Research.................................................   220
    NSF Supports American Innovation.................................   212
    Polar Icebreakers................................................   221
    Stem Education...................................................   218
    Stewardship......................................................   219
    2009 Budget Request Highlights...................................   214

                                       -