    [Senate Hearing 111-187]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-187

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2010

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 2847

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
       JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

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

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                   __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-287                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JON TESTER, Montana
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Charles J. Houy, 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                 MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                     officio)

                               Professional Staff

                                Gabrielle Batkin
                                Jessica M. Berry
                                 Jeremy Weirich
                             Art Cameron (Minority)
                            Allen Cutler (Minority)
                           Goodloe Sutton (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                  Michael Bain
                             Katie Batte (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, April 23, 2009

                                                                       Page

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

                             Thursday, May 7, 2009

    Department of Justice: Attorney General..........................    51

                             Thursday, May 21, 2009

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................   105

                             Thursday, June 4, 2009

    Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation...........   175
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   203

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009

                                           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, Reed, Pryor, Shelby, Alexander,
    and Murkowski.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY F. LOCKE, SECRETARY

                opening statement of senator barbara a. mikulski

        Senator Mikulski. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    and Science of the Senate Appropriations Committee will come to
    order.
        This is our first hearing on the fiscal year 2010
    appropriations for this subcommittee and for the 111th
    Congress.
        Today, we are beginning with the Commerce Secretary, Gary
    Locke. Secretary Locke brings an incredible background and has
    an incredible agency to do it.
        First of all, I believe that President Obama made a very
    good pick. Secretary Locke was formally the Governor of the
    State of Washington. He is well known for his commitment to
    innovation in his own State, to being a stickler for far-
    reaching management, and really comes with a commitment to
    innovation and experience in dealing with the Pacific Rim where
    so much of the future of the economy is tied.
        He has a compelling personal narrative as well, and we are
    just glad to have him.
        The Commerce Department itself is a very unique agency, and
    it was created to promote commerce, but the commerce of the old
    century is not the commerce of the new century. This is why the
    Secretary, bringing a very forward-looking viewpoint and a
    President who has put the resources in, put the people in,
    really wants to have that commitment.
        This should be the innovation agency. It should be the
    agency that really fosters the idea of an innovation-friendly
    Government, whether it is ensuring that people do not stand
    forever in order to get a patent, or that we protect our
    intellectual property and we view it as part of our homeland
    security. Additionally, agencies like the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology develop the standards for the new
    ideas and the new technologies so that our private sector can
    invent the new products to create jobs here and compete in the
    world.
        We also know that the agency is being called upon in the
    area of NOAA, which is so important to providing jobs to us in
    the coastal States--not providing jobs, but overseeing those
    things that impact on jobs. And we all know every single
    Senator depends on NOAA, whether it is to warn us of tornadoes,
    hurricanes, or to provide the information that farmers,
    factories, and people need. We also know that it is all part of
    green science which President Obama is advocating.
        Last but not at all least, it also has the important Census
    Bureau, and we in this committee believe that everybody counts
    in this country and everybody should be counted. So these are
    the big jobs of this agency.
        But we have had unrealistic funding for science programs,
    very little funding for technology and manufacturing
    partnerships, and then there have been really incredible
    management and cost overrun issues in terms of the NOAA
    satellites and also the census.
        This hearing today will be reviewing both the
    appropriations request and also what this Secretary wants to do
    with accountability.
        We know that the Department of Commerce was allocated
    sufficient funds for the stimulus package. We will be asking
    both today and in the days ahead how is the stimulus really
    promoting commerce in our country on issues like broadband and
    increased funding.
        But we also want to see increased accountability on the
    management issues facing the Commerce Department. The primary
    one that has such an immediate urgency is the 2010 census. The
    other has been the poor oversight of NOAA's satellite programs,
    and then both with this Secretary and his predecessor, our
    ongoing conversation about the need to reform the patent and
    trademark process. While our friends in Judiciary oversee
    patent law, we have to make sure there is a Patent Office
    infrastructure so that we have an innovation-friendly
    Government.
        Once again this year, I am pleased to say my ranking member
    will be Senator Richard Shelby. Senator Shelby and I have
    served in both the House and the Senate together. We have
    worked on this subcommittee now for more than 4 years, and we
    bring a spirit of bipartisanship, absolute civility and
    cooperation and consultation, and we intend to continue that.
    We believe that when we work together, we govern best.
        I would like to just say a few words now about the census.
    We take our constitutional obligation very seriously to have an
    accurate census. In 2009, we provided $3.14 billion to do it,
    $2.4 billion through the regular appropriations process and $1
    billion in the American Recovery Act. Senator Shelby and I have
    deep, deep concerns about the census management. We are
    concerned about the techno-boondoggle that has occurred, the
    tremendous loss of money, and the tremendous loss of
    opportunity. We learned that handheld computers could not be
    fully implemented. Census had to go back to pen and paper.
    Well, we might as well go back to the stylus and papyrus. I
    mean, this is the United States of America. It is being
    conducted under the Commerce Department, which is supposed to
    be the innovation agency, and we cannot get a handheld computer
    to work right to go knock on a door and ``say are you the
    person that really lives here?'' So we are really cranky about
    this.
        Moving beyond cranky into really absolute frustration is
    the accountability at the Patent and Trademark Office. We know
    that we have to have a well functioning Patent Office. My State
    is not only home to so much of our biotech innovation, the home
    to NIH and FDA, but a vibrant private sector that develops
    biotech companies as well.
        If we had our biotech executives here, they would say we
    stand in two lines in order to move our research into the
    clinical area. We stand in the FDA line for safety and
    efficacy. We want to be able to do that. But we also stand on
    the PTO, the Patent Office, and while we are standing in line,
    waiting sometimes 5 years, other people are in line overlooking
    our shoulder stealing our ideas. We cannot have that. The
    biggest intellectual theft in the world is going on, and it is
    because we have a stagnant operation there.
        So we have talked about reform. The talk is over. Now it is
    time for action.
        Then we have the NOAA satellite situation. Satellites at
    NOAA account for 25 percent of their total funding. Satellites
    are critical to predicting and warning about weather and
    observing changes in the Earth's climate. With an expected $1.3
    billion request, we want to get value for our dollar. We have
    now triggered a Nunn-McCurdy-like process to get our satellites
    under some type of fiscal discipline, and we need to know how
    is the Department going to handle the independent
    recommendations that have been made to put it back on track.
        We know you have a commitment to these. We know, Mr.
    Secretary, you have a commitment to it. We know that the
    President has a commitment to it. You bring a great deal of
    management know-how. We want to make sure we put the money in
    the checkbook in order to be able to accomplish these goals of
    ensuring jobs in America and saving our planet and also
    counting the people that are in our country so we know who we
    are, where we are and where we need to go.
        I would like to now turn to my able colleague, Senator
    Shelby, for his opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Welcome, Mr.
    Secretary.
        As Senator Mikulski has said, we have worked extremely well
    together on this subcommittee sharing many of the same goals
    and expectations for the agencies that this committee oversees.
    Senator Mikulski, I am pleased to serve beside you once again,
    and I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan fashion.
        Mr. Secretary, as I just said, welcome to the committee. I
    look forward to learning more about the soon-to-be-released
    2010 budget request and look forward to working with you in the
    years ahead.
        The Nation relies heavily on the Department of Commerce to
    maintain America's competitiveness within the markets around
    the world. The Department provides revenues to promote the
    products and services of U.S. businesses and then helps to
    level the playing field by expanding, strengthening, and
    enforcing our international trade agreements. Through the
    Department of Commerce, our country is able to maintain high
    technical standards as well as staying on the cutting edge of
    scientific research, all of which, Mr. Secretary, as you know
    well, are fundamental to our Nation's leadership in the global
    market.
        The Department of Commerce plays a vital role in our
    Federal Government and is in dire need of a leader to oversee
    the programs and agencies that are in distress. I believe they
    have found one. Within the past year alone, we have learned of
    failures at the Census, cost and schedule overruns within
    NOAA's satellite acquisition programs, insufficient fee
    collections at the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as
    numerous IT failures and mismanagement cues.
        The most serious looming crisis is the census crisis, which
    Senator Mikulski alluded to. Time is running out and there is
    great uncertainty for what was predicted to be the most modern
    and accurate census ever conducted. Census managers, Mr.
    Secretary, spent 8 years struggling to automate the information
    collection process by implementing the use of handheld devices
    that would produce more accurate data to save time and tax
    dollars. Managerial failures and incompetence have caused those
    plans to be scrapped and the census will once again be taken,
    it is my understanding, with paper and pencil. The price tag
    for this ineptitude raises the cost of the 2010 census.
        I am also concerned with the potential for political
    mischief in the execution of the 2010 census. The
    administration's announcement that the census would receive
    direct oversight by the White House staff is troubling.
    Statistics collected by the census play a critical role in how
    important decisions are made, including how over $300 billion
    in Federal funds are distributed annually. Mr. Secretary, given
    the broad reach of the data and how it influences the direction
    of these funds, the 2010 census must remain free of political
    tampering.
        The nominee for Census Director previously advocated the
    use of mathematical estimates, known as sampling, to lazily
    back-fill and inaccurately represent the count of our Nation's
    residents. This approach was reviewed by the Supreme Court
    during the 2000 Census, and if advocated again for use in the
    future, a political party could disproportionately steer
    Federal funding to areas dominated by its own members. This
    could shift billions of Federal dollars over the next years
    from some parts of the country to others because of population-
    driven spending formulas.
        By allowing sampling, some States could also potentially
    end up with more Members of Congress at the expense of others.
    By overcounting in one State and undercounting in another,
    manipulation could take place solely for political gain.
        The census should be conducted in a fair and accurate
    manner for all political parties and people using the best
    methods to determine the outcome. The 2010 census is not an
    estimate, but a constitutionally mandated count of the entire
    population.
        Mr. Secretary, one of the more important agencies under the
    Department of Commerce to my home State of Alabama is NOAA,
    which Senator Mikulski has also referenced. The gulf coast
    still lacks the infrastructure, research, and support from NOAA
    that other regions of the country have perpetually received.
    Just this past Sunday, at least 10 tornadoes touched down in my
    State of Alabama, killing two people.
        You see the chart here, showing billion-dollar climate and
    weather disasters across the United States from 1980 to 2008.
    Look where most of them were. In the Southeast.
        This NOAA chart--and that is their chart--shows the
    vulnerability of the southeastern United States to weather-
    related disasters. It plots the largest instances of billion
    dollar weather-related catastrophes that have occurred in the
    United States since 1980. The loss of life and the destruction
    of property from hurricanes and tropical storms account for
    more than half of all damages, $367 billion. If we add the cost
    of other weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, and
    flooding, the cost nearly doubles to $652 billion.
        While not all of these events, Mr. Secretary, are limited
    to the Southeast, NOAA's own research shows that the Southeast
    experiences more severe weather events than any other part of
    the country. Yet, federally funded climate and weather research
    in the region has lagged.
        To start to balance this, last year, working with the
    chairwoman, I provided funding for NOAA to work with the
    Southeastern universities to establish the Cooperative
    Institute for Southeast Weather and Hydrology. I am hopeful
    this will be the beginning of a coordinated effort to better
    understand the dynamics of weather and hydrology in the region
    and bring the citizens of the Southeast a semblance of balance
    in emergency forecasting and research services equal to those
    provided by NOAA in the Midwest.
        Mr. Secretary, I am also disappointed in the Department's
    lack of oversight on NOAA's satellite programs. NOAA is
    spending billions of dollars to develop two satellite systems
    that provide critical weather and environmental data, the
    National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
    system, NPOESS, and Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellite-R series, GOES-R.
        The NPOESS satellite system was supposed to cost $6.5
    billion for six satellites. I know you were not here then. It
    is now estimated that taxpayers will be handed a bill for $13.9
    billion for only four satellites that are less capable than
    originally planned. Something is amiss. This program is a
    complete failure for NOAA and an even bigger failure for the
    taxpayers.
        It is also my understanding, Mr. Secretary, that there are
    internal deliberations at the Department of Commerce to reward
    the contractor with the option to build two additional NPOESS
    satellites. My question to you to consider is how can you
    reward a contractor that has blatantly failed in its mission
    and cost the taxpayer billions in cost overruns. In other
    words, how do you evaluate that and how do you reward failure?
    If you choose to go forward with this effort, I believe that I
    will oppose it.
        The second satellite program is also a grave failure. The
    GOES-R satellite procurement was a $6.9 billion program for
    four satellites which has now ballooned into a $7.7 billion
    program for only two satellites with a delivery date 6 years
    behind schedule.
        The acquisition history of these two satellite systems, as
    well as the failed acquisition of the census handhelds,
    demonstrates that management and acquisition oversight does not
    exist at the Department of Commerce. I want to work with you to
    ensure that you have the tools necessary to perform contract
    oversight so that the Department can correct the agencies it
    manages and avoid the mistakes in the future.
        Finally, Mr. Secretary, no NOAA construction funding was
    provided to the Gulf of Mexico within the stimulus spending
    bill, while the Pacific Coast received more than $262 million
    in construction funds. While I am happy for the Pacific Coast
    communities, I want to know how and why the gulf coast was
    neglected and look forward to hearing your explanation.
        I am also looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the
    Department of Commerce's budget request and look forward to
    working with you as the committee crafts the 2010 budget.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. The committee wants to acknowledge that
    Senator Alexander from Tennessee is here. Senator, if you would
    be kind enough to withhold your statement until Secretary Locke
    makes his, then we will give you extra time to say a few words
    and go into your questions. Is that agreeable to you, Senator?
        Senator Alexander. Yes. I am going to have to leave
    shortly. But Senator Pryor is here----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, but you came before Senator Pryor.
    We also want to note that Senator Pryor is here, our newest
    member to the committee. You are way down there, but you are
    moving up pretty fast.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby. But we have all been down there, have we
    not?
        Senator Mikulski. We have all been down there. And when we
    hear from Secretary Locke, we all know we have been down that
    road before too.
        Secretary Locke, why don't you present the President's
    request to us and then we will jump right in with our
    questions?

                      STATEMENT OF SECRETARY GARY F. LOCKE

        Secretary Locke. Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Senator
    Alexander and Senator Pryor, I am pleased to join you today to
    talk about the Department of Commerce. I would like to make
    just a very brief opening statement while also submitting more
    comprehensive written testimony for the record.
        It is my top priority to make certain that the Department
    of Commerce plays an integral role in President Obama's efforts
    to help America reboot, retool, and reinvent. The President's
    budget reflects the Department's broad mandate to strengthen
    the Nation's economy, promote innovation and environmental
    stewardship.
        More than that, I have challenged our employees to
    establish the Department of Commerce in the eyes of the Nation
    as a voice for main street businesses and family wage jobs and
    to work to grow local economies by fostering innovation and
    opening markets to U.S. products and services.
        To that end, the President's 2010 budget for the Department
    includes some $13.8 billion in discretionary funds. This is an
    increase of $4.5 billion over the 2009 fiscal year
    appropriation of $9.3 billion, not counting Recovery Act
    appropriations. The large increase is due primarily to the
    decennial census, with extra funding of $4.1 billion.
        While most of the details of the 2010 request are still
    under development, I am happy to share some highlights, and of
    course, I look forward to providing the rest in the near
    future.
        This budget contains the resources necessary to complete
    the 2010 census effectively and on time, counting everyone
    once, only once, and in the right place. The allocation
    combined with the $1 billion that the Congress provided in the
    Recovery Act will enable us to hire nearly 1.5 million
    temporary workers over the next year. And I want to assure you
    that we have instituted numerous management and oversight
    changes in response to findings by the Government
    Accountability Office and our Inspector General and the
    concerns of the Congress.
        And I want to indicate to Senator Shelby that we have
    absolutely no intention, no plans whatsoever to use any type of
    statistical sampling in the reapportionment issues or the
    apportionment for the Congress. We will follow the Supreme
    Court ruling that statistical sampling is not allowed and that
    we will have a physical hard count of people.
        The request includes more than $1.3 billion for the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite
    programs that capture key weather forecasting and climate data,
    as well as resources to advance climate and ocean research and
    support implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Our weather satellite programs, as have been noted by the
    chair and by the ranking member, have been the focus of much
    concern by the Congress and oversight committees. Progress is
    being made to implement the recommendations of the GAO and the
    Inspector General and lessons especially from the NPOESS
    program have been incorporated with respect to the GOES-R
    program, but we still have challenges and much more work to be
    done.
        The President's plan includes doubling the funding over 10
    years for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
    research activities that are critical to the Nation's
    technology infrastructure, as well as $125 million for the
    Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and $70
    million for the Technology Innovation Program.
        The Economic Development Administration will provide $50
    million in grants to support the creation of regional
    innovation clusters and also $50 million to create a nationwide
    network of public-private business incubators to promote
    entrepreneurial activities in distressed areas.
        The President's budget also supports the International
    Trade Administration's efforts to promote exports and eliminate
    barriers to the sale of U.S. products and services and to
    continue to give the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office full
    access to its fee collections.
        I want to indicate that I have met with labor
    representatives of two of the major employee organizations
    representing POPA, as well as the unit that represents the
    trademark employees. We simply must work together with the
    employees and management and the stakeholders to drastically
    reduce the time it takes to process patents and to have patents
    issued. Otherwise, we are denying a key part of our economic
    recovery. It is important to get these innovations
    commercialized as soon as possible and to allow the American
    people to benefit from a lot of these technologies, whether
    drugs or innovations or products.
        I want to thank you for entrusting the Department with
    nearly $8 billion in Recovery Act funds. We have provided our
    proposed spend plans and will keep you informed of our
    progress.
        The National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration, NTIA, will have the biggest challenge:
    implementing the $4.7 billion to improve broadband deployment.
        Besides planning for the next year and making sure that we
    use current resources effectively, I am focused on addressing
    the key management issues facing the Department, and these
    include conducting a successful 2010 census, improving and
    shortening the patent process, managing our satellite
    deployment and acquisition program, and strengthening our
    overall information technology infrastructure within the
    Department of Commerce.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Your support has been and will be critical to our efforts,
    and I appreciate the chance to hear your views on these
    subjects.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to come before you
    today, and I look forward to your comments and your questions.
    Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Gary F. Locke

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to join you today to talk
    about the Department of Commerce. It is a privilege to serve the
    American people and I am grateful for the confidence President Obama
    has in my ability to lead this great agency. While this is my first
    opportunity to work with you as Secretary, I realize that the
    subcommittee has a critical role in achieving the Department's mission.
        The Commerce Department has a broad mandate to strengthen the
    Nation's economy, and promote innovation and environmental stewardship.
    The means by which we achieve these goals are vast and varied, and the
    37,000 public servants under my watch work daily to achieve them. As
    announced in February, the fiscal year 2010 President's Budget includes
    $13.8 billion in discretionary funds for the Department, a major
    increase over fiscal year 2009 due primarily to the Decennial Census.
    We look forward to announcing the full details of the President's
    Budget in the near future.
        This budget contains the resources necessary to complete the 2010
    Census effectively and on time, with an increase of more than $4
    billion. Combined with the $1 billion Congress provided in the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), these resources will enable us to
    conduct the Nation's largest peacetime mobilization by hiring nearly
    one and a half million temporary workers. The Census Bureau will also
    focus extensive advertising and partnership activities on hard-to-reach
    populations, to encourage a high response rate. All of this will be
    done with the goal of the most complete and accurate count of the
    Nation's population to date.
        The request provides more than $1.3 billion for satellites that are
    essential to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
    (NOAA) ability to capture weather forecasting and climate data.
    Resources are also provided to advance climate and ocean research, and
    support implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its requirement
    to end overfishing by 2011. These resources build upon the $830 million
    provided in the ARRA and will enable NOAA to meet critical mission
    needs.
        This budget supports the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology's (NIST) advanced measurement and standards activities that
    are critical to the Nation's technology infrastructure. The President's
    plan for investments in science includes doubling research funding
    within NIST over 10 years. The request includes $125 million for the
    Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to enhance the
    competitiveness of manufacturers by facilitating the adoption of
    efficient manufacturing processes. The Technology Innovation Program
    will receive $70 million to invest in high-impact research that will
    tackle critical national needs and advance innovation. These two
    programs had been proposed for termination in the fiscal year 2009
    President's Budget. In addition, the ARRA includes $220 million for
    NIST's scientific research activities and lab equipment and $180
    million for construction of NIST facilities.
        The Economic Development Administration (EDA) will support
    economically distressed communities in their efforts to develop
    strategies for long-term growth with higher-skilled and higher-wage
    jobs. EDA will provide $50 million in regional planning and matching
    grants to support the creation of regional innovation clusters. EDA
    will also use $50 million to create a nationwide network of public-
    private business incubators to promote entrepreneurial activities in
    distressed areas. Oversight of the $150 million provided to EDA in the
    ARRA for economic adjustment assistance and infrastructure funding,
    with priority for areas experiencing severe job losses, will remain
    active during fiscal year 2010.
        In fiscal year 2010, the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration (NTIA) will continue its important work of
    managing the Federal use of spectrum and performing cutting-edge
    telecommunications research and engineering, including resolving
    technical telecommunications issues for the Federal Government and
    private sector. In addition, NTIA will be administering the $4.7
    billion provided in the ARRA to expand broadband deployment and
    adoption, and will soon have completed the coupon program for the
    transition to digital television funded in the ARRA and the Digital
    Television Transition and Public Safety Act.
        The President's Budget will also fully support the International
    Trade Administration's efforts to promote exports from small businesses
    and eliminate barriers to sales of U.S. products, and give the U.S.
    Patent and Trademark Office full access to its fee collections, which
    will provide resources to strengthen the Office's ability to encourage
    innovation and safeguard the value of intellectual property through
    more efficient and higher quality patent and trademark examinations.
        While most of the details of the fiscal year 2010 request are still
    under development, I would also like to discuss and listen to your
    perspectives on the key management challenges facing the Department.
    Our Inspector General has identified several issues for my immediate
    attention, including overcoming the setbacks experienced in
    reengineering the 2010 Census, better positioning the Department to
    address information security risks, effectively managing the
    development and acquisition of NOAA's environmental satellites,
    establishing a safety culture at NIST, and ensuring NTIA effectively
    carries out its responsibilities for the digital transition. I'm
    pleased to report some progress in those areas, as the Census has
    entered its address canvassing phase using handheld computers, and NTIA
    has eliminated its coupon backlog since receiving ARRA funds, for
    example.
        Some challenges are unique to Commerce, and some are common in the
    Federal Government and the Nation as a whole. The Department has to
    upgrade its aging infrastructure, and effective management is critical
    to these efforts. We are very pleased that the administration plans to
    use ARRA funds appropriated to the General Services Administration for
    the next stages in the multi-year renovation of our headquarters, the
    Herbert C. Hoover Building.
        In closing, since its creation the Department of Commerce has
    played a pivotal role in a wide range of efforts important to the
    Nation. While we are currently facing challenging economic times
    domestically and internationally, to quote President Obama ``the time
    has come to usher in a new era of responsibility that lays a new
    foundation of growth on which we can renew the promise of America.'' I
    am excited about leading the Department into that era.
        Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today, and for
    your continuing support of the Department of Commerce and its programs.
    I look forward to your questions.

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Secretary Locke.
        We want to acknowledge that our colleague, Senator
    Alexander, is one of the candlelighters at the Holocaust
    Memorial remembrance that will occur very shortly. So Senator
    Shelby and I, as a courtesy, would like to turn to Senator
    Alexander. We know you have a very poignant job to do in a few
    minutes. So why do you not go first and then it will come back
    to us.
        Senator Alexander. That is a great courtesy, Madam
    Chairman. Senator Shelby, I thank you. I will only make two
    comments and then turn it back to the chairman.
        Well, first, I thank Governor Locke for coming by to visit.
    I told him, Madam Chairman, that I always welcome the addition
    of Governors to the Senate and to the administration. I think
    it brings a can-do spirit to the Nation's capital that we
    always like to see.
        And I look forward to working with you. This is a very
    important subcommittee. It works well together, focuses on our
    competitiveness and the implementation of the America Competes
    Act, which we all worked on and passed in 2007, which has
    received some additional funding this year. But we would like
    to keep the parts of that that belong in the Department of
    Commerce moving at a good rate. There is a very bipartisan
    focus on that and strong support out in the country for those
    efforts.
        In that line, I am very supportive of NOAA's recent
    decision to locate its supercomputer for climate change
    research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Governor Locke
    is well aware of Oak Ridge and of our national laboratory
    system since he comes from Washington State. I would say
    publicly what I said to him privately. I would invite you to
    visit Oak Ridge and see the computer operation there and see
    other activities that might fit within the Department's
    mission.
        Finally, I would like to encourage you and the
    administration to support the Colombia Trade Promotion
    Agreement and let us get that settled and behind us. I was glad
    to see the President in Latin America last week. Some of those
    countries are better friends of ours than others right now, and
    Colombia is one of our best friends. The Colombia Trade
    Promotion Agreement would end a one-way benefit for Colombia
    because most Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty-free.
    We would like for ours to do the same. It tends to isolate us
    from them and forces them toward other countries in the world
    when we want to encourage a friendship.
        So it is good for American business, good for American
    farmers, good for our State, good for Washington State, all
    States. So I would hope that the President and you, working
    with the Congress, could find a way to make the Colombia Trade
    Promotion Agreement something that the Congress can agree to.
        So welcome to Washington. I look forward to working with
    you.
        I thank the chairman for her courtesy.

                  REFOCUSING ON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MISSION

        Senator Mikulski. We will be seeing you shortly, Senator.
        Secretary Locke, the first thing that I want to just
    acknowledge is that I am very proud of the fact that a
    substantial number of agencies within the Commerce Department
    portfolio are headquartered in my State. They are NOAA, NIST,
    and Census. And I had the opportunity to interact with the
    leadership there as well as the staff. I want you to know that
    throughout your agency, there are what I call the worker bees,
    those wonderful people that under the old pay scale were the
    GS-5s through the 15s. They really have kept our Government
    going. In some instances, they have had good leadership and in
    some instances not.
        In our hearings, we tend to focus on ``the problem
    agencies'' but I hope we also take a look at all of the
    agencies and acknowledge the tremendous assets that we have in
    our Civil Service population. When you go over to NIST, which I
    hope we will have a chance to go together, you will see a civil
    servant that is a Nobel Prize winner. A civil servant is a
    Nobel Prize winner, and he is on the job right now today not
    only winning prizes but thinking the thoughts to win the
    markets.
        That is why I was so pleased that you met with the Patent
    Office staff. We have to look at the fact that our workers are
    not problems, but they are part of the solution. I believe that
    some of the issues around contracting out, lack of resources
    and so on, were at times very demoralizing to our staffs.
        So, therefore, what I am saying to you, as we look at it,
    what we need to do is look at the mission of the agency, what
    it is that the President wants to do, but also we need to look
    at the three R's, which is to reinvigorate our Civil Service,
    and we do it by the right leadership, respect and resources.
    This is not hard to do but it takes a real commitment to do it.
        Then I think we need to refocus on the mission of the
    agency while we dig our way out of the problems, but also where
    it is working like at NIST and other agencies, we really need
    to keep the momentum going.
        So I just want to thank you for it. It was refreshing to
    hear that you met with the Patent Office workers there. So we
    are going to work with you on this.

                          CENSUS MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

        But having said those sweet things, I have got to get to a
    problem child which is the census. We are very concerned about
    the census. My first question goes to the fact that we put
    money, working with Secretary Gutierrez and in the stimulus, to
    right the wrong. But what we would like to know now is what are
    the resources that it is going to take for you to be able to do
    the census. We have two issues: the short term, which is to
    make sure we get the census done, and then the step of
    procurement reform and what are we going to do about this
    contractor that had this cost-plus contract and which we are
    out billions of dollars.
        So can you tell us if we have the assurance that the census
    is going to be done right? What do we need to do to be able to
    help you do that?

                               COMMERCE EMPLOYEES

        Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        With respect to your overall comments about reinvigorating
    and respecting our employees, as well as refocusing our
    mission, I first want to indicate that I have already been out
    to NIST and met with the employees and toured the facility and
    met with the great scientists that are there. I have also been
    out to the Census Bureau already and met with all the employees
    there and toured their facilities. I have not yet been to NOAA.
        But I do want to say that, first of all, the Secretaries
    come and go and the political leadership of these agencies come
    and go. They know that we come and go. And we know that they
    are there for many, many years and do outstanding work. I
    believe it is absolutely vital that in all of the challenges
    that we have and all the programs that we have, that we need to
    rely on the expertise, the sense of pride and professionalism
    of the employees to help us become more efficient, more
    effective, and to deliver these programs that are so badly
    needed in the heartland of America.
        Throughout the rest of America, it is story after story of
    local governments, State governments and businesses furloughing
    people, cutting benefits, eliminating jobs, laying people off,
    and people are very, very worried about their future. And we
    here in the Federal Government have an opportunity, a
    responsibility to execute our mission as efficiently and
    effectively as possible, as quickly as possible, and to get the
    economy going again providing good family-wage jobs throughout
    all of America.
        I am really proud of the great professionals that we have,
    career people throughout all the agencies of the Department of
    Commerce, and it is my mission, one of my goals, as you say, to
    reinvigorate them, to provide them the respect so that they can
    say with great pride that they are an employee of the
    Department of Commerce, whether it is Census, whether it is
    NOAA, whether it is NIST, whether it is EDA, that they can say
    with pride that they work at the Department of Commerce.

                          CENSUS MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

        With respect to the Census, we have made a lot of changes
    with respect to management, with respect to oversight functions
    and programs at the Census, following the debacle over the
    handheld computers. The handheld computers were to have done
    two things: to provide automation as they verify addresses--and
    that is ongoing right now, and they still are using those
    handheld computers for that particular function, and it appears
    to be working well.
        The other function of the handheld computers was to do the
    actual knocking on the doors, the enumeration, to get to the
    folks that did not mail in the census questionnaire after April
    1, 2010. Because of problems there, that entire project was
    canceled, but costing us several millions of dollars of wasted
    funds.
        That to me is completely unacceptable. Throughout all of
    the contract programs and technology programs that we have in
    the Department of Commerce, I believe that we should not be
    paying people unless they have actually performed, and until
    they have actually performed, they should not get most of their
    payment. So I believe that we need to completely change our
    contracting procurement processes, whether it is for satellites
    or for handheld computers for census or whether it is just
    mainframe computers and technology within the Department of
    Commerce for everyday functions.
        We have also followed up on the suggestions and the
    recommendations of the Government Accountability Office, as
    well as our Inspector General. There are now monthly status
    reports that are given to the Secretary's Office, as well as
    OMB, but within the Census Bureau, they now have weekly reports
    focusing on high-risk areas with milestones and metrics so that
    senior management can see what is happening and to respond
    immediately.
        They also have a chief testing officer to oversee the
    testing efforts of these new programs and activities that have
    not yet been done before. Especially now that we are going back
    to paper and pencil, we have a whole bunch of processes that
    need to be evaluated----

                            ACCOMPLISHING THE CENSUS

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, are you confident that,
    number one, the census is going to happen? Number two, you have
    to hire lots of people. This is going to take money. It is
    going to stretch the FBI. Tell us what is required because this
    is an appropriations hearing as well. It sounds like you have
    really been standing sentry over the GAO and other
    recommendations. What is it going to take to do it? Do you have
    adequate resources to do this? Do you need resources? What
    about this in terms of the security clearances needed?
        Secretary Locke. Well, with respect to the resources, we
    believe----
        Senator Mikulski. My time is running out on these
    questions. So I get 5 minutes to cover the whole Commerce
    Department.
        Secretary Locke. I believe that we do have the funds
    sufficient to conduct the census and we are monitoring it very,
    very aggressively. We feel that the President's proposal is
    sufficient.
        With respect to the security clearances, what has been
    happening so far is that the FBI has been able to provide us
    the FBI fingerprint checks and the criminal background checks
    in an expeditious manner without interfering with other
    functions of the FBI.
        It is a pilot right now. We will find out what is happening
    at the end of this current hiring process to make any
    recommendations with respect to the other million people that
    we will hire in the spring.

                             FBI BACKGROUND CHECKS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee also funds the FBI, and
    we know that our FBI is really tremendously stretched. They are
    fighting organized crime. They are fighting terrorism. We have
    now asked them to take on the mortgage fraud area, et cetera.
    And at the same time, they have got to do all these security
    clearances.
        We are very firm that we must guard vulnerable populations
    against any potential predators that could be coming into their
    homes or their communities. So we want the background
    screening. We want the background checks. How that is defined
    we want to know about and then also about the resources. So if
    you are old, if you are a child, et cetera, we need to protect
    access to vulnerable populations. That is our job.
        How many people are you going to hire?
        Secretary Locke. Over a million people.
        Senator Mikulski. A million people. That is a lot to put on
    the FBI, the database, et cetera.
        Now, the FBI does not have a great technology record. This
    whole committee has been through a boondoggle with them to the
    loss of billions. They are now working with a private sector
    firm where their own data system and case management is
    tremendously improved, but they do not have an A-plus record.
    Okay? So let us not be in la-la land that all this is going to
    work.
        I believe in what President Reagan said, trust but verify.
    I trust that what the FBI told you is so, but we really want
    verification.
        And then second, if you are going to bring a million people
    on line and the FBI is not just sitting around waiting for its
    database to be used, we wonder then, as they come into the
    system, will this crash the system? What is this going to cost
    the system, et cetera? So we really need to be up on this now
    since now taking the census is going to be so much more labor-
    intensive. The FBI has a spotty record on its own technology
    functionality.
        And number three, you cannot be screening a million people
    in a short period of time and not have issues. So we would like
    you to keep us abreast of both cost and operation.
        I have used my time. I would like to now turn to Senator
    Shelby.

                              CENSUS PARTNERSHIPS

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, a lot of us were alarmed when it was
    discovered that the Census had plans for using ACORN as a
    partner in the 2010 census. ACORN employees, as you probably
    know, were found to be fraudulently registering voters for
    elections. Given ACORN's political history, a lot of us feel
    that the Census Bureau should not partner with organizations
    that have shown systemic problems with both accuracy and
    legitimacy.
        It leads me to this. What is the Department of Commerce and
    the Census Bureau, under your leadership, doing to ensure that
    groups such as ACORN are adequately investigated prior to their
    involvement in something as important as the 2010 census? And
    the next question, is the Census in desperate need of support
    as to be willing to take anyone and everyone who applies? Could
    that not be a dangerous path?
        Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
        First of all, the Census will not be hiring anyone from
    ACORN. We use these so-called partners to get the word out and
    to spread the word about the need for people to respond and
    answer the questionnaires.
        Senator Shelby. How will that work? Just reassure me.
        Secretary Locke. Well, for instance, we have a maximum--I
    believe $2,999 that we are willing to spend to help
    organizations get the word out. We will not make any payments
    to those partnership organizations. We pay the bills whether it
    is to pay the rent of a hall for a town meeting or to print,
    using our materials, materials that they can pass out.
        Senator Shelby. But they will not be taking the census,
    will they?
        Secretary Locke. No. We control the hiring. We do not use
    any Government funds to subcontract with any organization to do
    any activity----
        Senator Shelby. You are not going to delegate it, in other
    words.
        Secretary Locke. We are not delegating anything to ACORN.
        Senator Shelby. To anybody.
        Secretary Locke. Or anybody.
        Senator Shelby. I like that.

                                NOAA SATELLITES

        NOAA satellites. What degree of confidence do you have in
    the new cost and schedule estimates? And if you are confident,
    tell us why since every other estimate has turned out to be
    grossly exaggerated. And what is the level of risk of
    continuity of weather and our climate data and what contingency
    plans are being considered? If you do not have this, you can do
    this for the record.
        Secretary Locke. I think we will have to give you a more
    detailed response.
        [The information follows:]
                                   Satellites
        For the polar-orbiting satellites, the on-orbit and recently
    launched satellites are performing well and there is no immediate risk
    to data continuity for NOAA's weather and climate missions. We are
    concerned about the fragility of the constellation that begins to occur
    in 2013. This risk to data continuity occurs in the 2013 timeframe due
    to the schedule delays that the National Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) is facing.
        NOAA is placing highest priority on the acquisition of this system
    to mitigate this risk. NOAA will use data from NASA's NPOESS
    Preparatory Project (NPP) sensors to produce data that meet or exceed
    the data from NOAA-19 (our current operational satellite). We have
    plans in place to make operational use of the data from the NPP
    spacecraft by increasing the number of products NOAA had planned to
    generate from the NPP system as a risk reduction mission.
        NOAA has a contingency plan in the event there is a failure of any
    of its operational systems. This plan depends on using existing NOAA
    satellite assets, leveraging data from NASA and Department of Defense
    environmental satellites, and forging partnerships with international
    space agencies to acquire data needed to support NOAA's operational
    weather and climate mission. NOAA is also investigating opportunities
    to fly a mission with the legacy imager Advanced Very High Resolution
    Radiometer (AVHRR) in the event VIIRS continues to experience
    developmental challenges

        Senator Shelby. I know you are new there, and I believe
    from your background, you want to do a good job and you will do
    a good job. But you are going to have to get your arms around
    those costs there because ultimately, as Senator Mikulski has
    pointed out, you come back up here to the committee and we have
    trouble finding money if the costs keep going up and up in not
    just your agency, but the FBI, everywhere else because we will
    be allocated a finite amount of money to deal with this. You
    know? You spent two terms as Governor, so you can understand
    what we----
        Secretary Locke. There are very limited funds, and cost
    overruns in satellite programs only eat up into the dollars
    available for other programs.
        Senator Shelby. Great overruns, gross overruns. But you
    will get back with us on that.
        Secretary Locke. I will. And let me just say that the GAO
    has already done a progress report in April 2009 saying that,
    for instance, the GOES-R program has incorporated a lot of the
    lessons learned from the NPOESS program. Still a ways to go,
    but they have revised cost estimates. But the GAO still points
    out some concerns and has made some recommendations that we
    intend to follow to try to get a better handle on the satellite
    acquisition program.

                       DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, you know very well about our
    fisheries and seafood, coming from Washington State and serving
    two terms as Governor there. Safe and sustainable seafood is
    vital to the U.S. economy, food security, and our livelihood.
    The development of a sustainable marine aquaculture industry
    will provide jobs for the commercial fishing industry, severely
    depressed by competition from imported seafood products.
        What research extension and marketing programs will the
    Department of Commerce provide to foster development in this
    area?
        Secretary Locke. Thank you very much.
        As our wild fishery stocks decline, it is very important
    that we are able to complement the wild stocks with
    aquaculture. NOAA really needs to engage in a program of
    research and setting up criteria and rules by which safe,
    environmentally sustainable aquaculture can operate, and right
    now we do not have any such rules, regulations, or guidelines.
    And that is something that must be done, given the fact that
    Americans want safe----
        Senator Shelby. Are you going to provide leadership there?
    Will you work with us on that?
        Secretary Locke. Yes. We intend to pursue this and to help
    develop those guidelines.

                              INTERNATIONAL TRADE

        Senator Shelby. Touching on international trade, Mr.
    Secretary, our long-term economic growth--and this is an area
    you have done a lot of work in--and job creation must include,
    I believe, an exporting component. In recent years, exports
    have only accounted--listen to this--for 12 percent of our GDP.
    In fact, we export less than many other of the major G-20
    nations.
        What can the Department and ITA do to help more United
    States firms begin exporting, realizing there is a big market
    in the world, and to further expand our Nation's exporting
    capabilities? I think that is crucial for the Department of
    Commerce.
        Secretary Locke. I think we really need to break down some
    of the silos that exist between some of the bureaus within the
    Department of Commerce. Trade, exports is not simply a function
    of the International Trade Administration, but also should be
    part of our Economic Development Administration working with
    companies, employers, large and small, on those opportunities
    for export and trade.
        Senator Shelby. Good. Thank you. I am through.
        Senator Mikulski. I hope you feel better.
        Senator Pryor, our newest member?

                              BUSINESS INCUBATORS

        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is great to be
    here, and thank you for doing this today. I understand the time
    sensitivity, so I am going to keep my questions brief and
    really just focus on two areas.
        But first, let me thank you for coming to Arkansas last
    week. It was great to have you. Madam Chair, I think the first
    trip he made outside of the District was to Maryland to some of
    those facilities there, but the first trip out of the D.C.
    area, he came to Arkansas last week and we really appreciate
    it. Thank you for being there.
        Let me ask, if I may, about a comment you made about--I
    think you said $50 million for public-private partnerships and
    business incubators. I have a bill on science parks or
    technology parks or business incubators. Tell me how you
    think--is it $50 million a year? Is that what it is?
        Secretary Locke. Yes, it is.
        Senator Pryor. And tell me how you think the Department
    will use that money and what your criteria will be for that.
        Secretary Locke. Well, we are going to be developing the
    criteria, but really it is going to be looking at proposals
    from local communities where we would partner with those local
    organizations, economic development organizations, nonprofits,
    colleges, universities. Obviously, we want to help leverage our
    funds and be a complement to those local efforts. Obviously, if
    it is a science park, if people want to create a science park
    and use that as part of an incubator, that could be a very
    strong proposal.
        So we have no template, no cookie cutter approach, but
    general policies that we will draft, along with the grants that
    we now use, for instance, in the Economic Development
    Administration, competitive grants, but obviously, the more
    partnership at the local-State level that there are, then the
    stronger that proposal will be. Obviously, it is incumbent
    upon--even with regional clusters, that regions and
    municipalities and parts of the country focus on what their
    strengths are, what their dreams and aspirations are, and using
    the Federal dollars to help them achieve that mission.
        Senator Pryor. I am glad you are focused on that. In fact,
    the building you were in at the University of Arkansas at
    Little Rock on that campus where you did your town hall meeting
    actually has a component of it that is a business incubator,
    and it is exactly what you have talked about. It is a great
    example of a success story.

                    BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

        Let me change gears, if I may, and ask about broadband, the
    BTOP, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Can you
    give us a status report on that? Particularly I am wondering if
    you are working with States to try to find the right way to
    implement that and what your schedule might be on that.
        Secretary Locke. We have just closed the public comment
    period on how governments and the private sector and academia
    and policy people feel those broadband dollars should be
    distributed. It is roughly $4.7 billion out of NTIA, and then
    there are significant funds through the Department of
    Agriculture. Both Agriculture, Commerce, and FCC have been
    coordinating and trying to develop these policies with all the
    stakeholder input, over thousands and thousands of comments and
    ideas on how to distribute these dollars, ranging from direct
    distribution to the Governors and to the States, to a
    combination of direct distribution to the States, as well as
    grant proposals coming into the Federal agencies.
        We hope within a few months to announce the final criteria
    after receiving all of this stakeholder input, digesting all of
    that, and there will be, I do not believe, one-size-fits-all
    criteria. The unserved vary from State to State. So we need to
    figure out a program that has maximum flexibility but, I
    believe, accomplishes significant national purpose or national
    goals so that at the end of the day, people will look back and
    say that with the broadband funds, limited as they are, that we
    were able to accomplish some very significant milestones or
    achievements with respect to high-speed Internet service all
    across America.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. But following up on Senator Pryor's
    question, when do you think you will issue the guidelines to
    apply for grants?
        Secretary Locke. We have submitted the spend plans to the
    Congress. It is our intent to have the guidelines finalized,
    made public to America sometime in the early summer of----
        Senator Mikulski. So if you are from Arkansas--like we in
    Maryland have the Maryland Broadband Cooperative, which is like
    a little TVA for broadband in our rural communities--when would
    they be able to apply for grants?
        Secretary Locke. It is our intent--we are all shooting for
    early summer 2009, and with the grants actually going out the
    door beginning in the fall 2009.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay, thank you.
        I am going to ask a few more questions. I just want to
    apprise my colleagues the Holocaust Memorial starts at 11
    o'clock. So we are going to want to move expeditiously.
        I would like to thank Senator Pryor for raising EDA and
    broadband. These were two issues I was going to cover.

                 DIGITAL TO ANALOG CONVERTER BOX COUPON PROGRAM

        While Senator Reed is getting himself together from
    Banking, I want to go to the digital coupon program. We are
    very concerned about whether this is really going to work.
    Could you bring us up to date on where you are on the digital
    coupon? Again, we were short on money. Everybody did this
    famous countdown so we knew it was changing, but then nobody
    knew that in addition to a converter box, they needed an
    antenna and so on.
        Are you looking at this program related to the digital
    coupons not only to help our people be able to afford the
    conversion, but at the same time, get them what they need to
    conduct the conversion in a proper way and not just by buying
    every gizmo that they think is going to help them?
        Secretary Locke. We have transferred from NTIA within the
    Department of Commerce some almost $66 million to the FCC to
    help us get the word out for a smooth transition, public
    service announcements especially in targeted populations and
    targeted parts of the country.
        Senator Mikulski. We got the announcements.
        Secretary Locke. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. What we need to know is if the content in
    the announcements is worth anything, and number two, do you
    have enough money for really dong the coupons?
        Secretary Locke. We believe that we do have the funds
    necessary to get the coupons out. We noticed that not all the
    coupons that have been distributed have actually been redeemed,
    but we have ample supply of coupons and funds for coupons that
    will go out even after the conversion on June 12.
        We have already had some test markets and data from all the
    major media markets shows that around 95 to 97 percent of the
    households are ready for the conversion.
        Now, we can only get the information out to people. I still
    have some concerns about the quality of the information,
    whether people truly understand these public service
    announcements. Some of these are funded by the private sector,
    but do they really understand what is happening and what they
    are about to face on June 12? So we are looking at upgrading
    the quality of the content of the public service announcements
    and the commercials.
        Second of all, the data shows that most of the top 50 media
    markets around the country--some 95 to 97 percent of the
    households are equipped for the change.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, this is terrific
    because, number one, I am glad you are taking it so seriously
    and are so hands-on on it.
        First, in terms of the quality of the content, people
    really need know to buy the right technology.
        Second, I believe that there is a portion of the population
    that will not focus until they go to turn on the TV and it does
    not work. Therefore, I presume that this program will have to
    exist for another year after the date of conversion when people
    get their wake-up call, if you will, to that. We want to
    continue to work with you to make sure it is happening.
        I will come back to satellites quickly and another quick
    one on the census. But let us turn to Senator Reed, a brother
    coastal Senator. We have been through it with the fisheries,
    have we not, Senator Reed, and our fishermen and watermen
    facing disasters and then at times dealing with Commerce was a
    disaster?

                        ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO FISHERIES

        Senator Reed. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. It is a little prickly point.
        Senator Reed. It is. But I want to thank you for your not
    only interest but your effective support because you ensured
    there were $10 million in the last budget for New England
    ground fisheries, and this is just absolutely critical to my
    fishing industry. Without your leadership, it would not have
    happened, and I thank you.
        I want to welcome the Secretary. As we said yesterday, Mr.
    Secretary, I think Dr. Lubchenco, the new NOAA Administrator is
    doing a very good job in her first few days as the point person
    for your Department on these issues.
        As you know and as Senator Mikulski alluded to, in the
    Northeast we are transforming the management of the ground
    fishery to a quota-based catch share system. It is a process
    that works well elsewhere. But we need to ensure that there is
    a continued investment in that activity. As I mentioned,
    Chairman Mikulski was extraordinarily helpful in securing $10
    million for New England's fisheries and Dr. Lubchenco's recent
    announcement of a $16 million investment in groundfish was
    welcome news.
        So the question is, can we assume that you will continue
    this transition by adequately funding it as we go forward and
    prioritizing this support going forward?
        Secretary Locke. Senator Reed, we know that for these new
    fishing regimes to be effective, there has to be economic
    assistance to those affected in the fishing industry, as well
    as having the funds to do the research, to set up the data
    management systems, and to comply with other Federal laws, and
    not to have the fishermen and the fishing industry pay for some
    of these costs. So it is our intent to continue to move forward
    and provide this economic assistance to the fishing industry.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Then there is another aspect of this, and that is the
    cooperative research which goes on between the fishing industry
    and the National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA. It helps
    provide not only support for the fishing industry, but also
    developing new gear and more accurate stock assessments. I hope
    that you would also include this cooperative research as a
    priority in your budget.
        Secretary Locke. We are assuming that. We know that we need
    that type of research to be effective.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
    Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to
    working with you.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, because of the memorial,
    we are going to conclude this hearing. I have additional
    questions about NOAA. I think what you will observe is that we
    have a great admiration for NOAA, but it needs a lot of reform.
    We believe that the President has picked the right person in
    Dr. Lubchenco and look forward to working with her on this.

                      RECRUITING FOR TEMPORARY CENSUS JOBS

        One final question on the census. These 1 million people.
    We are getting a lot of questions from ethnic heritage groups.
    How and when will people be able to apply for those 1 million
    jobs?
        Secretary Locke. We anticipate receiving the applications
    in the early winter, shortly after 2010, and the hiring and the
    interviewing process will be probably in March so that they are
    up and running in April, receiving some training so that they
    can hit the field. But we know that to have a successful
    census, we need to have outreach to populations that typically
    do not trust government or do not speak English very well. So
    that is going to be the cornerstone of a successful census.
    Outreach, public service announcements, paid advertisements,
    and enumerators that go door to door from those hard-to-reach,
    hard-to-count populations so that those whose doors they knock
    on feel more comfortable seeing a person of their own ethnicity
    or background at the door.
        Senator Mikulski. That is exactly right. We are already
    getting these requests, as I said. The heritage groups in the
    Latino community are well known, but I have a substantial Asian
    community as well. And people are really eager to participate
    and believe that they have the people to recommend for these
    jobs who would love to be able to do them. I believe there is a
    cornucopia of opportunity in our great American mosaic. We have
    these vibrant heritage organizations that can help us recruit
    and do outreach with the personnel that are multilingual and
    would meet the security test.
        The other area for us to give consideration is realtors. As
    you know, so many people in the real estate community are small
    business people--in many instances, primarily women--women and
    men who know their communities cold. Well, they have not been
    as busy as they once were. And the reason I say that is perhaps
    for Census to also look, during this economic downturn--for
    those who not only work in the community--but know the
    community. They know the people. They are familiar with it.
    They are not running around with a GPS saying ``where is
    Montford Avenue?'' and, ``am I in Fells Point?'' which is in
    Baltimore, or Horn Port, which is out on the Chesapeake Bay.
        So I would also consider that this could be an opportunity
    for recruitment with people who are versed with talking with
    people, know the community, are paperwork-oriented, and could
    get the job done. There might be some who were in that field.
    But again, I would discuss it with the National Association of
    Realtors.
        Secretary Locke. Thank you. We could always use more
    partners.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Murkowski, we were just getting
    ready to wrap up to go to the Holocaust Memorial.
        Senator Murkowski. Madam Chair, if I may just very, very
    briefly ask a question about fisheries and the Denali
    Commission.
        Senator Mikulski. Go ahead.

                       FUNDING FOR THE DENALI COMMISSION

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is a privilege to have another
    westerner sitting in this very important seat as Secretary of
    Commerce and I welcome the opportunity to be working with you
    in these coming-up years.
        Two issues that I want to touch on this morning, and I
    appreciate the consideration of the chairman in giving me a
    couple minutes this morning.
        The Denali Commission, very, very important to us in the
    State of Alaska in terms of how we address some of our very
    critical needs, whether it is water and sewer, whether it is
    bulk fuel infrastructure projects, education, and certainly
    when it comes to health care. It has been a critically
    important partnership between the Federal Government, the State
    of Alaska and tribal organizations with really the chief goal
    being to improve the standard of living in rural Alaska through
    investments in transportation, in infrastructure, rural power
    systems, alternative energy projects, bulk fuel, health
    clinics, teacher housing. It really runs the gamut, and I
    believe it has become a prime example of how Government should
    operate.
        The Commission traditionally has been funded by Congress
    through the annual appropriations process, but I would like to
    work with you to see, as we move forward, if we can get that
    funding for the Commission included in the President's budget.
    I would just ask for your assistance in working with me on this
    important initiative.
        Secretary Locke. I would be delighted to work with you and
    explore funding issues on that.
        Senator Murkowski. Great. I appreciate it. The Commission
    is set to be reauthorized this year, and I am going to be
    working with my colleague, Senator Begich, on this. But we will
    look forward to working directly with you.

                      SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES

        On fisheries, so critically important not only to my State
    of Alaska, certainly your home State of Washington. But our
    fisheries are truly the lifeblood of coastal Alaska. Very
    substantial interest in making sure that we have the best
    scientific information to continue the management of our
    fisheries in a sustainable way. And I believe that the Federal
    funding that we have seen for fisheries science, at least in
    Alaska, has been inadequate for a number of years.
        There has been discussion and you have indicated that
    funding the full implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
    its requirements to end overfishing will be key to you. Well,
    we do not have any overfished ground stocks in Alaska. We want
    to keep it that way.
        We have got some fundamental stock assessment surveys, such
    as the Gulf of Alaska pollock survey, that are in danger of not
    being performed due to lack of funding. If NMFS is unable to do
    the survey because they do not have adequate funding, the
    implications on a huge industry can be quite sizable, having a
    negative effect that are far greater than the cost of any
    survey there.
        I guess my question to you this morning, Mr. Secretary, is
    whether or not you agree that funding basic fisheries science
    such as these surveys should be prioritized, and do you intend
    to increase funding for this type of research within the
    budget?
        Secretary Locke. I would have to get back to you with
    respect to the President's proposal on the funding for that
    specific scientific activity, but obviously, we cannot be
    successful in having sustainable harvests, having sustainable
    fisheries if we do not have the science and the scientific data
    to drive those policy decisions. So science is the key. It has
    to be a priority, and without the science, everything else is
    for naught.
        [The information follows:]

                            Basic Fisheries Science

        Assessment of fish stocks is a high priority for the administration
    in order to maintain sustainable fisheries and protect their ecosystem.
    Implementation of Annual Catch Limits and other provisions of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act must to be based on the best
    scientific information available. The Administration recognizes that
    high quality fish surveys, fishery monitoring, and stock assessments
    are necessary to attain optimum yield while confidently preventing
    overfishing.
        The Alaska Fisheries Science Center conducts fishery surveys to
    measure the distribution and abundance of fish and crab stocks in the
    Aleutian Islands, eastern Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. The
    research surveys use a range of sampling techniques, measurement
    equipment (including acoustic instruments), and fishing gear (trawls
    and longlines). Survey data derived are analyzed by Center scientists
    and supplied to fishery management agencies and to the commercial
    fishing industry.
        The Expand Annual Stock Assessment--Improve Data Collection (EASA)
    and the Survey and Monitoring budget lines fund survey, monitoring, and
    stock assessment activities. Funded at $1.7 million in fiscal year
    2001, the EASA budget line has grown to provide NMFS with increased
    funding and capacity to conduct fish surveys, fishery monitoring and
    stock assessments nationwide. Of the $40.5 million for EASA in fiscal
    year 2009, $2.7 million is used for these activities in Alaska. The
    Survey and Monitoring budget line for fiscal year 2009 is $17.0
    million, of which $4.0 is provided to the Center for survey activities
    in Alaska.
        NMFS continues to increase the number of stock assessments needs in
    Alaska and elsewhere. In fiscal year 2010 we are requesting an
    additional $9.9 million in EASA and an additional $6.3 million for
    survey and monitoring.

                              OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would agree with you. That is
    another area that we would like to be working together with you
    to make sure that we have got the resources to advance that
    science.
        On the ocean acidification----
        Senator Mikulski. Senator, we are really going to have to--
    --
        Senator Murkowski. I am going to wrap up right now, Madam
    Chairman, and I appreciate it. I just wanted to mention we all
    recognize, as we are talking about climate change, what we are
    seeing with the ocean acidification as one of the greatest
    threats to climate change. And we do not have any funding for
    that. So, again, areas of science and research that I would
    hope that we could be working on.
        Madam Chairman, I have got a couple other questions about
    Arctic issues and endangered species.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. I want to just again pledge our
    support. It is just this very poignant ceremony and we need to
    be rather prompt in our----
        Senator Murkowski. And I appreciate your additional time. I
    will submit my additional questions to the Secretary for his
    comments.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. We both have a big investment in NOAA. So
    we look forward to working with you.
        Senator Murkowski. We look forward to working with you.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, as you can see, there is
    no end to the topics that we could discuss with you. This is
    the first of what we would hope would be many conversations,
    both formal and informal. But the committee extends its hand to
    you in partnership and ongoing conversation.
        [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

                                     USPTO

        Question. Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) budget authority is
    based on the amount of fees the agency expects to collect each year.
    For fiscal year 2009, Congress gave PTO authority to spend $1.9
    billion. Yet, due to the downturn in the economy, businesses are filing
    less applications, which means PTO is collecting less fees. As of March
    13, PTO collected $100 million less fees than predicted. Yet, PTO needs
    $1.9 billion to operate in order to continue processing applications
    and to hire additional examiners to reduce backlog. What is the plan to
    address this short fall in fee collections?
        Answer. The budget is built based on the necessary requirements and
    resources needed to accomplish the goals and objectives detailed in the
    USPTO strategic plan. Like any business, if projected fee collections
    are insufficient to fully meet the resource requirements for the year,
    the agency strives to prioritize critical activities (i.e., patent and
    trademark examination).
        Due to current economic conditions, the agency anticipates end of
    year fee collections will be approximately equal to actual collections
    in 2009. In response, USPTO management has made decisions to implement
    cost-saving measures, which include:
      --Fiscal year 2009 Patent Hires Frozen at 600 attrition replacements
      --Instituted an exception hiring process to limit hiring to critical
            vacant positions or areas of need.
      --Eliminated Discretionary Awards and essentially stopped Non-Revenue
            Generating Overtime
      --Curtailed Revenue Generating Overtime
      --Significantly curtailed Training Expenditures not required to
            sustain job-critical qualifications or that was already
            obligated.
      --Suspended the Law School Reimbursement Program
      --Reduced spending IT System Development/Improvement Efforts
      --Reduced spending Patent Workload-based Contracts
      --Reduced spending Non-IT Contracts/Services
      --Reduced global IP training programs and conferences, and reduced
            international travel
      --Reduced domestic Travel and Supply Purchases
        Question. What steps will PTO take if fee collections continue to
    decline?
        Answer. Should the economy continue to decline resulting in further
    reductions to USPTO resources, several options still exist to reduce
    funding requirements including:
      --Suspending all patent examiner recruitment & retention bonuses
      --Suspending all production and revenue generating overtime
      --Further reducing spending on IT infrastructure strengthening and
            replacement projects
      --Further reducing global IP training programs and conferences, and
            reducing international mission travel
      --Reducing IT and non-IT operational support functions
        The USPTO is working with my staff and the Office of Management and
    Budget to improve the current operating model so that it can
    responsibly accommodate both positive and negative changes in the
    economic landscape. We look forward to engaging Congress to develop the
    optimal model to ensure continued USPTO success.
        Question. How will this affect the current backlog?
        Answer. The USPTO had planned to hire 1,200 patent examiners in
    fiscal year 2009. In an effort to address the short fall in fee
    collections, the office now plans to hire only 600 patent examiners.
    The agency would have expected the additional 600 examiners to process
    approximately 6,000 applications in fiscal year 2009. However, given
    the decline in patent application filings, USPTO's current projections
    of average wait times, which are contained in the 2010 Budget are lower
    than the same projections made in the 2009 Budget.
        Question. The Commerce Inspector General concluded PTO is one of
    the top management challenges facing the Department. The patent backlog
    continues to grow, and is on track to have a backlog of 800,000 cases
    this year with the average time to process an application is almost 3
    years. In the past, PTO blamed funding shortages for the problem, yet
    even with increased funding, the problem seems to be getting worse.
    What steps will the new Secretary take to reduce the backlog?
        Answer. For clarification, the USPTO anticipates the backlog at the
    end of the year will be approximately 740,000. This estimate reflects
    that the USPTO anticipates a decrease in its backlog by approximately
    10,000 cases this year.
        Hiring--while not the sole answer to reducing the backlog--remains
    an important means for examining record numbers of new patent
    applications. In 2005, when the USPTO set a strategic goal of hiring
    1,000 new examiners per year, many in the public said that it couldn't
    be done. Yet, the USPTO successfully hired and trained these new
    employees, and then went on to hire and train over 1,200 new patent
    examiners in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. These new patent
    examiners have helped cut into the patent backlog, by decreasing the
    rate at which the backlog was increasing.
        In addition to hiring, providing patent examiners with training,
    mentoring, better electronic search and examination tools, and
    reviewing ways to improve the quality of patent applications are
    reforms the USPTO is pursuing to help it reduce the backlog.
    Additionally, the Accelerated Examination option introduced in August
    2006, allows any applicant to obtain a patent decision within 12
    months. To date, over 3,060 of patent applications have been filed
    under the Accelerated Examination program.
        Question. In 2008, GAO report found that PTO hiring efforts were
    not sufficient to reduce the backlog of patent applications. For every
    patent examiner PTO hired, the agency lost two patent examiners. Patent
    examiners leave because cost of living in DC is high, they want more
    hands on experience, and the private sector offers better
    opportunities. GAO found bonuses; special pay rate and opportunities to
    work remotely would greatly increase retention. The GAO in June 2005
    recommended 2 steps to improve hiring and retention of examiners, which
    included improving communications between management, patent examiners
    and union officials. Fostering greater collaboration will resolve
    issues underlying the quota system and the need for continuous
    technical training. What is the current staff retention rate?
        Answer. To clarify a misstatement in the question, for every two
    patent examiners hired, the USPTO loses one patent examiner. The USPTO
    does not lose two examiners for every one hired. The attrition rate is
    an overall rate based on the entire examiner population.
        The current patent examiner overall attrition rate, as of April
    2009, is 6.8 percent. This figure translates to a 93.2 percent
    retention rate.
        Since the GAO released a report on USPTO hiring efforts in
    September 2007, the USPTO has experienced improvement in patent
    examiner attrition rates. At the time of the GAO report, the overall
    patent examiner attrition rate was 8.5 percent, and first year
    attrition rate was 15.6 percent. In the fiscal year 2008, this dropped
    to 12.9 percent, which represents a 30 percent decline. The average
    attrition rate for patent examiners with less than 3 years experience
    was 15.5 percent when the GAO report was released. Currently, the rate
    has dropped nearly 21 percent to 12.3 percent. Notably, the average
    attrition rate for patent examiners with greater than 3 years
    experience is currently 2.2 percent. Overall, the USPTO attrition rate
    is lower than the average rate for Federal workers (8.5 percent vs.
    11.2 percent).
        We believe this improvement in attrition is attributable to the
    economy along with a strong work life quality program and a number of
    targeted initiatives including:
      --Flexible work schedules;
      --Expansive teleworking programs;
      --Recruitment bonuses;
      --Part-time employment;
      --Lap top computers available for overtime work away from the office;
      --Productivity award programs
      --Increased training opportunities tailored to examiners' needs;
      --Focused training for new examiners; and
      --Movement toward a nationwide workforce.
        To date, however, several of these initiatives have been suspended
    due to reduced fee collections.
      --Reimbursement for advanced technical education and law school;
      --Annual adjustment to examiner special pay.
        Question. What steps will you take as the new Secretary to ensure
    these recommendations are implemented to continue to reduce attrition
    and retain employees?
        Answer. Since the June 2005 GAO report, the USPTO has taken steps
    to strengthen communications between management, patent examiners, and
    union officials. These steps include instituting weekly work group
    meetings and larger bi-weekly meetings between managers and employees;
    establishing a policy that first-line supervisors hold regular
    meetings; holding regular monthly meetings with union officials and the
    Patent Office Professional Association; and working to institute a
    quarterly Joint Labor Management meeting with all unions.
        As noted in the response above, the USPTO has also instituted a
    number of retention initiatives. The USPTO recognizes that a qualified
    corps of patent examiners is essential to effectively handle its
    important responsibilities. Attracting and retaining those highly
    qualified employees through a range and incentives and a positive work
    environment are absolutely necessary. I intend to review all
    initiatives currently in place with the emphasis of expanding and
    improving them.

                                   ITA US&FCS

        Question. Created under the Foreign Service Act, the United States
    & Foreign Commercial Service is the trade promotion arm of the
    International Trade Administration. They represent U.S. business
    interests internationally, and small-and-medium-sized businesses rely
    on this service to promote the export of goods and services from the
    United States. In recent years, management trends at the Department of
    Commerce suggest that the number of commercial officers overseas is
    diminishing, while officers serving in domestic locations in non-
    commercial roles grow. This trend has the potential to seriously
    jeopardize the support of expanding U.S. businesses overseas.
        How many Foreign Service officers did the Commercial Service have
    in fiscal year 2004 versus what the Department expects in fiscal year
    2010?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2004, US&FCS had 246 officers. In fiscal
    year 2010, US&FCS expects to have 237 officers.
        Question. How many current officers serve in domestic positions?
        Answer. A total of 49 officers are currently serving in domestic
    positions.
        Question. What is the attrition annual rate of Foreign Service
    officers?
        Answer. The annual attrition rate for the Foreign Service officers
    for each of fiscal year 2005, 2006 and 2007 was 7 percent. In fiscal
    year 2008, it was 5 percent and in fiscal year 2009, it is expected to
    be 3 percent.
        Question. How many overseas posts did the Commercial Service have
    in fiscal year 2004 versus fiscal year 2010?
        Answer. In 2004, US&FCS had 153 overseas posts in 82 countries. It
    is expected that US&FCS will have 131 overseas posts in 80 countries in
    fiscal year 2010.
        Question. How many of those positions are not currently filled?
        Answer. We currently have 13 vacant Foreign Service Officer
    overseas positions in fiscal year 2009.
        Question. Explain how the fiscal year 2010 budget request
    adequately supports the mission of the U.S. Commercial Service and that
    of the Foreign Service Officers.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget provides adjustments for
    inflationary expenses in personnel and US&FCS fixed costs related to
    the provision of support services to both international and domestic
    offices and the headquarters. In addition, the request includes $5.2
    million to expand ITA presence in emerging markets in Asia, Africa and
    Eastern Europe.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                        NTIA--BTOP/TARGETING RURAL AREAS

        Question. Secretary Locke, I wanted to ask you about the Department
    of Commerce's plans to deploy the more than $4 billion in American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act broadband deployment funding Congress and
    the Administration gave to your agency. I am especially concerned about
    ensuring that this funding reaches rural America, the Department of
    Commerce's definitions of underserved and unserved, the Department of
    Commerce's anticipated timeline for distributing these funds, and the
    agency's intent to consult with States about pre-existing broadband
    deployment plans.
        The digital divide runs deeply through rural America--and
    especially through rural Vermont. I firmly believe that places like the
    Northeast Kingdom of Vermont--the three most Northeastern counties of
    Vermont, areas in southern Vermont isolated by the Green Mountain
    National Forest and vast numbers of ``digitally disconnected''
    Vermonters living in between these two areas receive priority when it
    comes to distributing funding for your Broadband Technology
    Opportunities Program. This will mean carefully defining unserved and
    underserved. Preference for funding must be given to Americans with no
    access to broadband. However, communities where the private sector has
    ``cherry picked'' profitable customers and left their rural neighbors
    offline must be afforded funding opportunities through the ARRA
    broadband programs.
        I commend you, and Secretary Vilsack of the Department of
    Agriculture, for adopting aggressive timelines to formulate plans for
    the distribution of these broadband funds. I believe that the NTIA must
    continue this aggressive posture to deploy these funds in time for the
    2009 construction season, a short window in Northern climates like
    Vermont. A 100 million broadband project in east central Vermont, East
    Central Vermont Fiber, is shovel ready right now--a victim of the
    financial collapse. Dozens of wireless projects are on hold, from
    companies like Great Auk (AWK) Wireless and Cloud Alliance in Vermont,
    ready for construction if Federal funding can be identified. The
    Vermont Telecommunications Authority has $40 million in State bonding
    authority waiting for a matching Federal investment. North-Link, a
    fiber project in northwestern Vermont, is under construction already--
    but awaiting a final investment to finish construction. These projects
    can deliver broadband access to Vermonters by the end of the summer--
    but it will depend on you and your agency pushing to get this money out
    the door as quickly as possible.
        And finally, I want to bring your attention to the work the Vermont
    Congressional Delegation and Vermont's Economic Stimulus and Recovery
    Office have undertaken since Congress passed the recovery act. We began
    aggregating broadband infrastructure grant proposals throughout Vermont
    in an attempt to offer NTIA and RUS a comprehensive strategy towards
    building broadband infrastructure to every Vermonter. This effort has
    brought together private, public and non-profit providers who have
    shared their proposals and plans with our offices and State officials.
    As ARRA requires NTIA to consult with States, I hope you and your team
    will take such comprehensive approaches into consideration when making
    decisions on broadband funding applications. Should the Department of
    Commerce decide to provide block grants to States, I also ask that you
    not base your decisions on population, but instead on a State's true
    build out needs. For years private telecom providers have chosen to
    deliver services first to high population areas and second to rural
    Americans. This strategy has left America's largest digital divide in
    low population, rural States like Vermont. At a minimum, any block
    grant should include an all-State-minimum of no less than three-
    quarters-of-one-percent of all ARRA broadband funds.
        Given the rural paradox of telecommunications, where those most
    isolated and who benefit the most from telecommunications
    infrastructure are the last to receive such access, does the Department
    of Commerce plan to specifically target rural and underserved areas
    such as Vermont through the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program.
        Answer. The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), as
    set forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    (Recovery Act), has many important goals. One of these is to ensure
    access to broadband service for consumers living in ``unserved'' areas
    of the United States. The Recovery Act also provides funding to improve
    broadband access in ``underserved'' areas--whether they are in rural,
    suburban, or urban settings. Within the Department of Commerce, the
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration is in the
    process of defining these and other statutory terms in order to
    establish funding eligibility criteria. While the final criteria have
    yet to be established, I am confident that they will ensure that
    applicants seeking to serve rural and underserved areas of Vermont will
    be able to compete effectively for BTOP funding.
        Question. I understand the Department has already suggested a
    tentative timeline for issuing solicitations for BTOP funding. Does the
    Department of Commerce plan to stick to that timeline?
        Answer. NTIA is working as expeditiously as possible to implement
    the BTOP. On March 12, 2009, NTIA and the Department of Agriculture's
    Rural Utilities Service (RUS) issued a joint Request for Information
    (RFI), inviting public comment on implementation of BTOP. NTIA is
    currently in the process of reviewing the public comments filed in
    response to the RFI and plans to issue a Notice of Funds Availability
    (NOFA) this summer to allow eligible entities to apply for BTOP funds.
    NTIA plans to issue two subsequent NOFAs, inviting additional grant
    applications, which will be timed to ensure that all grants are made
    before the statutory deadline of September 30, 2010.
        Question. Would you consider a more aggressive timeline that might
    get all of the funding to States this construction season?
        Answer. The Recovery Act requires that all funds be obligated by
    September 30, 2010. In order to meet this requirement and to provide
    all participants a reasonable opportunity to apply, NTIA is considering
    giving applicants three opportunities, or rounds, to apply for BTOP
    funds over the life of the Program. The agency's current plan is to
    publish a NOFA this summer and to hold workshops in a number of
    locations across the country, soon thereafter, to answer questions
    about the application process. This process would be repeated in late
    calendar year 2009 and again in spring 2010, so that prospective
    applicants who are not ready this summer can prepare to apply for BTOP
    funds during the second or third rounds. The three rounds would also
    allow NTIA to make program adjustments based on the experience from the
    earlier rounds. NTIA believes that having several opportunities for
    organizations to apply is equitable and effective--especially for
    smaller organizations that have fewer resources and may need more time
    to prepare their applications and will help ensure that the funds are
    used in the most efficient manner possible. Futhermore, multiple rounds
    will also help organizations in States like Vermont apply for funds in
    time for their respective construction seasons.
        Question. Will States like Vermont, where a coordinated effort is
    already underway to provide NTIA with a comprehensive and consolidated
    broadband grant application, be more competitive than States that
    submit piece-meal applications?
        Answer. In the Recovery Act, Congress wisely directed that NTIA
    consult with the States with respect to the best ways to identify areas
    to which broadband grant funds should be directed and the proper
    allocation of grant funds. NTIA has already begun meeting with
    officials from the States and has been actively soliciting input with
    regard to best practices. I expect different States to adopt different
    approaches to the BTOP program, but we will not be able to assess the
    relative merits of any particular approach until all the applications
    have been filed.
        Question. Would you support including additional appropriations to
    the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program into the annual
    appropriations process?
        Answer. The Recovery Act provides NTIA with $4.7 billion for the
    purposes of increasing broadband deployment and adoption in unserved
    and underserved areas of the United States, and the statute requires
    that these funds be obligated by September 2010. Accordingly, NTIA is
    working to implement the program and to issue grants quickly and
    efficiently to qualified recipients. I will be working closely with the
    Assistant Secretary of NTIA, the Office of Management and Budget, and
    Members of Congress as the program develops in order to assess whether
    it is fulfilling its objectives within existing appropriations.
    Decisions about future appropriation requests will be made in the
    context of program performance and the Administration's budget process.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

                         NTIA--COMPETING FOR BTOP FUNDS

        Question. The Recovery Act provides $4.7 billion to establish a
    national broadband service development and expansion program, known as
    the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program or BTOP. This program
    will provide competitive grants to improve broadband access in
    ``unserved'' and ``underserved'' areas.
        Can you provide any assurance that agency guidance related to
    ``unserved'' and ``underserved'' areas will be defined in a way that
    ensures that States that do not contain mainly rural areas, like Rhode
    Island, will be able to effectively compete for this important funding?
        Answer. Yes. The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP),
    as set forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    (Recovery Act), has many important goals. One of these is to ensure
    access to broadband service for consumers living in ``unserved'' areas
    of the United States. The Recovery Act also provides funding to improve
    broadband access in ``underserved'' areas--whether they are in rural,
    suburban, or urban settings. In addition, the Recovery Act contemplates
    grants being awarded in every State and directs NTIA to provide support
    for an array of initiatives, including broadband education, awareness,
    training, access, and equipment for strategic institutions, such as
    schools, job-creating facilities, libraries, and healthcare providers.
    In view of these statutory objectives, I am confident that applicants
    from Rhode Island will be able to compete effectively for BTOP funding.

                        EDA--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

        Question. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act reauthorized
    the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Firms and tasked the program
    with covering service industry firms.
        Can you provide an update on Economic Development Administration's
    progress in expanding its cover of serving service firms?
        Answer. On May 5, 2009, EDA published a proposed rule in the
    Federal Register that implements the provisions of the reauthorization
    statute, including inclusion of service sector firms.
        On May 18, 2009, EDA sent comprehensive guidance to the Trade
    Adjustment Assistance Centers addressing the addition of service sector
    firms. EDA directed the Centers to accept applications from service
    sector firms immediately.
        The guidance package included worksheets and templates that augment
    the existing application form (ED-840P) to provide the additional
    information required for service sector firm certification and to
    comply with the performance data collection requirements of the
    reauthorization statute.
        EDA will conduct teleconference training with Trade Adjustment
    Assistance Center personnel to update them and provide ongoing support
    for both the Centers and applicant firms.
        EDA will engage the Centers in the development of the revised
    certification form and other documentation prior to seeking Paperwork
    Act Reduction approval of any new forms.
        Question. Do you believe EDA will have sufficient resources to meet
    its new responsibilities without reducing assistance to manufacturers?
        Answer. EDA can meet its new responsibilities while still assisting
    manufacturers. The Recovery Act authorized EDA to use $350,000 of its
    appropriations each fiscal year on full-time administrative positions
    for the TAA for Firms program. The majority of the EDA FTE
    administering the TAA for Firms program evaluate and certify firm
    eligibility. EDA is required to conduct both a programmatic and a legal
    review of each certification petition. EDA anticipates that service
    sector firm certifications will be approximately equal to the existing
    number of manufacturer certifications. As a result, overall
    certifications are expected to double.
        With respect to the eleven Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers, EDA
    anticipates significant transition issues because the Centers' existing
    staff is geared almost exclusively to the manufacturing and producing
    firms that have been the focus of the program for over 25 years.
        EDA is exploring policy options that will allow the TAA for Firms
    program to effectively assist more firms, in both the manufacturing and
    service sectors, without the need for additional funding or increased
    overhead.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

                        NTIA--BTOP/TARGETING RURAL AREAS

        Question. It is critical that the broadband stimulus funds are
    spent in a way that targets them where they are needed most. Is it your
    intent to make unserved areas, those areas where broadband has not
    previously been deployed, as the number one priority at NTIA?
        Answer. The Recovery Act charges the Department of Commerce with
    the responsibility of addressing the broadband needs of both
    ``unserved'' and ``underserved'' populations, facilitating greater use
    of broadband services, increasing broadband speeds, and increasing
    broadband access to community institutions, among other objectives.
    While I expect NTIA to pursue all of these objectives, I agree with you
    that the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program provides a unique
    opportunity to expand broadband access to communities that desperately
    need it, particularly those areas of the United States that are
    currently unserved.
        Question. The Recovery Act does not define the terms ``unserved,''
    ``underserved,'' or frankly, even for that matter, ``broadband.'' The
    House-Senate conferees provided some guidance, but ultimately, the
    definitions are up to the agencies.
        I believe that it is important that we do not establish definitions
    for broadband that are so high that they would end up actually leaving
    rural areas behind. If our goal is to build broadband infrastructure,
    if we set speed thresholds too high, the digital divide between rural
    and urban areas could be further exacerbated. Demanding the fastest
    possible speeds--in areas that don't even support basic broadband
    today--as a condition of awarding a grant seems like a recipe for
    deterring any investments in these areas, depriving them of jobs in
    building out broadband and perpetuating the lack of broadband service
    there.
        How do you plan to implement the definition of broadband in a way
    that will result in deployment of broadband at advanced speeds?
        Answer. Among other things, the Recovery Act directs NTIA to
    provide the greatest broadband speed possible to the greatest
    population of users. To help implement these requirements, NTIA and the
    Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a
    joint Request for Information (RFI) on March 12, 2009, seeking the
    public's input on these definitions, as well as a number of other
    policy and procedural issues. NTIA received over 1,000 comments in
    response to the RFI by the April 13, 2009 deadline. NTIA is in the
    process of reviewing the public comments filed in response to the RFI
    and plans to issue a Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) this summer to
    allow eligible entities to apply for BTOP funds and setting forth
    eligibility criteria. I am confident that these criteria will be
    consistent with the statutory directive to maximize the number of
    consumers with access to broadband, while at the same time increasing
    the speed of broadband service that is available.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                                      NOAA
                 ELECTRONIC LOG BOOKS ON THE GULF SHRIMP FLEET

        Question. In January 2008, NMFS promulgated regulations
    implementing the red snapper rebuilding plan requiring the shrimp fleet
    to reduce fishing effort and by-catch in juvenile red snapper habitat
    areas by 74 percent. Failure to achieve this target reduction triggers
    the closure of those areas to the shrimp fleet. This program is the
    principal means to monitor the level of shrimp fishing effort and by-
    catch in the red snapper habitat areas as required by these
    regulations.
        What is NMFS doing to assist the shrimp industry with their efforts
    to install Electronic Logbooks on the Gulf shrimp fleet in order to
    monitor shrimp fishing effort?
        Answer. NMFS is funding a contract to support acquisition and
    installation of Electronic Logbooks on shrimp vessels, and collection
    and analysis of the data gathered by the devices for use to estimate
    effort in the shrimp fleet. In fiscal year 2009 NMFS is applying
    $200,000 to the contract. NOAA has not requested funds for this in
    fiscal year 2010.
        Question. Are the log books effective in assisting NOAA in
    determining by bycatch levels?
        Answer. Yes, the data obtained from this program assists us in
    estimating levels of sea turtle and red snapper bycatch mortality in
    the shrimp trawl fishery, as well as bycatch levels for other species
    such as blacknose sharks. This program has improved the accuracy of
    shrimp fishing effort estimates. Since inception, 538 Electronic Log
    Books (ELBs) have been installed in a representative sample of the Gulf
    of Mexico shrimp vessels (about one-third of the active fishing fleet
    covering the entire Gulf of Mexico from south Florida to south Texas)
    and 470 of these units are still deployed and functioning.
        Question. If so, why is NOAA not assisting the boat captains with
    the cost to implement these regulations?
        Answer. Currently, there are no costs to the boat captains for
    implementation of the ELB program, other than providing the information
    through the ELB.
        Question. Installing electronic logbooks on shrimp boats is the
    only means available for NMFS to accurately measure shrimp fishing
    effort and, thus, to prevent the closure of this fishery and the loss
    of thousands of jobs. If NMFS is going to require that shrimp fishermen
    reduce their fishing effort by 74 percent in some of their best fishing
    areas in order to support your red snapper plan, don't you think it
    makes sense for NOAA to assist in funding the purchase and installation
    of these electronic logbooks--and fund the collection and analysis of
    the data?
        Answer. Currently, there are no costs to the boat captains for
    implementation of the ELB program, other than providing the information
    through the ELB. All ELB installation, data collection, and data
    analysis, are covered by a NMFS funded contract.
        Question. NOAA has created a funding disparity between the
    Northeast, Northwest, and the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the fact that
    some of the largest river systems in the Nation pour into the North
    Central Gulf of Mexico and the existence of well-respected research
    facilities along the Gulf Coast, NOAA has consistently focused its
    resources in other parts of the country. The ecosystems of Mobile River
    (America's 4th largest river system) and Bay along with Alabama's
    coastal communities support tourism, commercial and recreational
    fishing, and important habitats for fish and wildlife. What will you do
    Mr. Secretary to ensure that the Gulf of Mexico is treated more
    equitably in the distribution of NOAA research and weather dollars?
        Answer. The Department agrees that NOAA has an important role to
    play in supporting the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA continues to work to
    address the unique and critical needs of all regions of the country,
    including the significant needs of the Gulf of Mexico region. NOAA is
    committed to addressing the needs of the Gulf region and continues to
    implement a number of activities to assist the region. Despite the
    fiscal constraints of the fiscal year 2010 budget, it includes
    continued support and increases for NOAA activities in the Gulf of
    Mexico. Additional details and examples of activities supporting the
    Gulf are included below.
        NOAA Fisheries budget includes $20.5 million specifically for Gulf
    of Mexico activities, an increase of $8.0 million or 64 percent over
    2009. This increase includes $2.5 million to collect and analyze data
    to improve our understanding of the fishery impacts of hurricanes, our
    efforts to mitigate those impacts, and our ability to minimize the
    impacts of future storms. The funding will support time on ships and
    other platforms for surveys of fish, shrimp, other living marine
    resources as well as social and economic surveys of the fishing
    industry and fishing communities. This program provides the data and
    core assessments needed to support fisheries management in the
    hurricane-prone areas. The budget requests an additional $1.1 million
    to support economic surveys of commercial fishing fleets and
    recreational anglers, and development of decision support tools for
    assessing catch shares, fish stock rebuilding plans, community impact
    analysis, and other management measures. Additional economic surveys
    that will be conducted include a series of marine protected area
    surveys and protected species valuation surveys.
        The budget provides additional resources for observer coverage in
    the Gulf. An increase of $1.1 million for observer coverage of pelagic
    longline fishery of Atlantic Bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico will
    allow NMFS increase the observer coverage required for the Gulf of
    Mexico pelagic longline fleet and an additional $0.1 million will
    augment observer program coverage in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish
    fishery. This observer program monitors the catch and discard of reef
    fish species and other finfish and ESA species in the Gulf of Mexico
    reef fish fishery.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget also provided additional resources to
    support the implementation of Annual Catch Limits. An increase of $1.4
    million will support fishery independent surveys in the Gulf of Mexico
    to produce the best technical advice to the Fishery Management Councils
    and support the implementation of Annual Catch Limits. An inshore trawl
    survey to support the assessment of gag and other snapper-groupers also
    will be implemented. In addition, an increase of $0.5 million for the
    Gulf Regional Council provide it with important resources to set,
    evaluate, and revise annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability
    measures (AMs) to end overfishing on stocks subject to overfishing by
    2010 and for all other stocks by 2011 and to develop amendments to
    their Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) that implement ACLs and AMs. An
    additional $0.4 million will support the improvement and enhancement of
    the independent peer-review process for scientific data required to
    appropriately set the annual catch limits for managed fisheries in the
    Gulf of Mexico.
        The budget also provides additional resources to gather more
    accurate data on fisheries landings. It includes an increase of $0.3
    million for commercial fisheries biological sampling and to support
    more timely reporting of commercial fisheries landings through the
    development and implementation of electronic reporting technologies. It
    also includes $0.6 million to support work by State agencies to provide
    more complete and timely information on marine recreational fishing
    participants (anglers and for-hire vessels) for inclusion in the
    National Saltwater Angler Registry. More complete and up-to-date
    registries can be used for more efficient and precise telephone surveys
    of fishing effort in both State and Federal waters.
        In addition to NMFS activities, the National Ocean Service (NOS)
    continues to support activities to address the critical needs of Gulf
    of Mexico communities and ecosystems, including an increase of $1
    million in fiscal year 2010 for the Gulf of Mexico Alliance. Highlights
    of NOS activities in the Gulf include:
      --Since 2008, NOS has conducted a competitive grant program to
            address priority activities of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance:
            create hazard resilient coastal communities; ensure healthy
            beaches and shellfish beds; support habitat conservation and
            restoration; increase environmental education; promote
            ecosystem integration and assessment; and reduce nutrient
            inputs to coastal ecosystems. The fiscal year 2010 Presidents
            Request includes $5 million for this grant program, an increase
            of $1 million over fiscal year 2009 appropriation.
      --All five Gulf of Mexico States participate in the State-Federal
            coastal zone management partnership created under the Coastal
            Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). Gulf States receive annual
            grants from NOAA ranging from $1-2 million, matched
            approximately 1 to 1 by State and local resources. In fiscal
            year 2008 the five States received a total of $10.3 million to
            implement their programs, and the fiscal year 2010 President's
            Request includes this level of funding for the States as well
            (estimates pending final appropriations). The Gulf of Mexico
            State coastal zone management programs focus on a range of
            issues important to the region: coastal habitat protection,
            mitigation, and restoration; managing coastal development to
            protect lives and property and enhance community resiliency;
            and engaging in outreach and education about the importance of
            the region's tremendous coastal resources.
      --NOS distributes water level information from a network of
            approximately 70 Federal and partner monitoring stations in the
            Gulf, including 4 new stations built in 2008 to withstand a
            Category 4 Hurricane. These hardened stations were designed
            following the devastating 2005 hurricane season to provide
            critical oceanographic and meteorological information
            throughout storm events. The water level information provided
            by NOS supports marine navigation, storm surge warning systems,
            coastal restoration activities, and climate monitoring.
        NOS continues to support other activities in the region including
    hydrographic surveys for nautical charts, accurate positioning, oil
    spill response, tides and currents data for marine transportation and
    other uses (including 8 Physical Oceanographic Real-Time Systems
    (PORTS) in the Gulf of Mexico region by the end of fiscal year 2009),
    regional coastal ocean observing systems, resource protection through
    four National Estuarine Research Reserves and one National Marine
    Sanctuary, coastal and estuarine land conservation, coastal zone
    management and coastal storms capacity building, status and trends of
    chemical contamination of U.S. coastal waters, Harmful Algal Bloom
    Forecasts, and other efforts to support the region.
        Question. This Administration contends that global warming poses a
    serious risk to the country's ecosystems. In Mobile Bay, for instance,
    many contend that global warming and saltwater intrusion will
    fundamentally alter the ecosystems that many of Alabama's citizens
    depend on for their livelihoods. What is NOAA doing to research the
    effects of global warming, specifically in important estuary systems
    like Mobile Bay?
        Answer. Estuaries are biologically and ecologically important
    ecosystems that provide important services to the surrounding
    communities and ecosystems. Through the National Estuarine Research
    Reserve System (NERRS), NOAA is working to understand and protect
    valuable estuarine ecosystems around the country. These sites also
    serve as important ``living laboratories'' for research, including
    studies to improve understanding of how ecosystems respond to climate
    change. There are four NERR sites in the Gulf of Mexico (including
    Weeks Bay in Alabama) and a total of 27 sites around the country.
        NERRS is a network of protected areas established for long-term
    research, education and stewardship. This partnership program between
    NOAA and the coastal States protects more than one million acres of
    estuarine land and water, which provides essential habitat for
    wildlife; offers educational opportunities for students, teachers and
    the public; and serves as living laboratories for scientists.
        NOAA is supporting interdisciplinary, multi-year competitive
    research programs investigating how oceanic and coastal ecosystems
    respond to climate variability and change. The goal is to provide
    managers with the scientific knowledge and tools, including ecological
    models, to prepare for climate change impacts with more certainty in
    scale, timing and local detail. This research, supported through the
    National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), focuses on three
    issue areas in particular: fisheries, protected resource impacts and
    sea level rise.

                             LARVAE SAMPLE ANALYSIS

        Question. Is it true that the National Marine Fisheries Service
    routinely sends its larvae samples all the way to Poland for analysis?
    I understand that this is a critical piece of the process for
    researching ecosystems, the health of fish stocks, and other scientific
    questions. I also understand that by sending these samples to Poland,
    we are forcing our research community to wait as much as a year for
    results and pay enormous amounts of money to a foreign entity.
        Shouldn't NOAA be focused on building this capability in this
    country, putting Americans to work, and improving the ability of our
    research facilities to do timely work?
        Answer. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Morski
    Institute Rybacki (Sea Fisheries Institute) of Poland have a 35-year
    bilateral agreement to conduct joint research on fisheries ecology.
    This cooperative research effort began in 1974 as a way for Poland to
    repay its debt to the United States for financial assistance after
    World War II. In the early years, NMFS plankton specialists trained the
    Polish marine scientists in the detailed methods of identifying fish
    larvae from all U.S. waters. Although the war debt was repaid in the
    mid-1980s, this highly successful scientific collaboration has
    continued, because it is beneficial to both sides.
        The Polish Sorting Center is the most economical, accurate, and
    timely way to accomplish the detail-oriented work of sorting and
    identifying the contents of plankton samples. For example, the Alaska
    Fisheries Science Center spends $180,000 per year for the sorting and
    identification of their 2,000 samples by the Polish Sorting Center. To
    accomplish this same level of effort in-house, the Alaska Fisheries
    Science Center recently estimated that they would incur personnel costs
    of approximately $900,000 annually, as well as additional costs for
    supplies, equipment, and modifications to their laboratory space. The
    Polish Sorting Center's turn-around time for NMFS' samples is typically
    3-10 months. Their staff has been doing this work for 35 years, and
    they are experts in the identification of larval fish and zooplankton
    from at least seven of the Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) managed by
    NMFS. This depth of experience enables them to maintain high standards
    of quality control, and to provide consistent data year after year.
        At present, three NMFS science centers (Northeast, Alaska, and
    Southeast) and the Dauphin Island Sea Lab are participants in this
    agreement. If NMFS were to lose this relationship, we would need an
    immediate qualified partner to accomplish the ongoing work and avoid a
    multi-year delay in providing data to our stakeholders. At this time
    there is only one other sorting center that could process NMFS' samples
    from multiple LMEs. However, that center is also outside of the United
    States. The time necessary to establish a sorting and identification
    center and train staff is approximately 3-5 years. Loss of continuity
    in standardized identifications, especially for problematic species
    groups such as tunas, mackerels and snappers, would put data integrity
    at risk. A disruption of this magnitude would jeopardize NMFS' ability
    to meet our fishery-management mandates, including the requirement to
    provide fishery-independent indices from plankton surveys for the
    federally managed species in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Question. We have seen an appalling decline in interest among young
    people in science and research. There are many worthwhile programs
    around the country that try to get kids interested in science. For
    instance, the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama brings school groups
    from all over the State and Southeast United States to the Lab for
    educational programs designed to help them better understand and
    appreciate the world they live in. What can NOAA do to increase young
    peoples' interest in natural science and help programs like those
    sponsored by the sea labs?
        Answer. In the America COMPETES Act of 2007, Congress provided NOAA
    with a broad mandate to ``conduct, develop, support, promote, and
    coordinate formal and informal educational activities at all levels.''
    As the lead agency in ocean and atmospheric sciences, NOAA is in a
    unique position to motivate and connect the younger generation to the
    world they live in. NOAA has many well-established national and
    regional programs that provide meaningful educational opportunities to
    the younger generation. NOAA will continue to support NOAA's education
    activities to increase students' interest in natural science and
    provide teachers the tools needed to nurture and encourage that
    interest through Competitive Education Grants, that allows NOAA to
    expand our partnerships with capable education institutions such as the
    Dauphin Island Sea Lab. Below are just a few examples of education
    programs and activities across NOAA:
        Competitive Education Grants.--NOAA's Office of Education offers
    several grant programs that are intended to provide K-12 students with
    instructional materials and/or experiences within or outside of the
    classroom that will encourage their interest in science and the
    application of that knowledge to real-world problems. The Competitive
    Education Grants program supports regional to national scale projects
    in both formal and informal education and is intended to reach a wide
    variety of audiences. These grants support teacher professional
    development, instructional materials development and publication,
    citizen science programs, science camps, and exhibits related programs
    at science centers, aquariums and natural history museums around the
    Nation. As an example, this program supported the installation of
    Science on a Sphere (SOS) at the McWane Science Center in Birmingham,
    AL. Institutions such as the Dauphin Island Sea Lab are eligible for
    funding support from Competitive Education Grants and B-WET (see
    below). NOAA is requesting an increase of $4 million for a total of $5
    million in fiscal year 2010 to expand this program.
        Bay-Watershed Education and Training (BWET) Program.--The B-WET
    program supports local and regional projects that offer meaningful
    watershed educational experiences to K-12 students. The B-WET program
    currently serves Chesapeake Bay, California, Hawaii, Pacific Northwest,
    New England and Gulf of Mexico regions.
        NOAA's National Sea Grant Program.--Sea Grant's innovative and
    effective marine and aquatic education programs have been a cornerstone
    of the Agency's education portfolio and have produced a record of
    successes spanning three decades. An established network of Sea Grant
    educators, located at universities across the Nation, is committed to
    NOAA's goal of advancing environmental literacy and educating future
    environmental professionals and leaders. Sea Grant educators tailor
    their K-12 marine and aquatic education offerings to meet the needs of
    their regions, developing relevant science-based educational programs
    for schools, professional education opportunities for teachers, and
    workforce training. Last year, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant education
    efforts alone reached more than 11,000 elementary, middle and high
    school students and nearly 300 educators (attending professional
    development seminars). Nearly 28,000 attendees participated in programs
    for children and families in Mississippi and Alabama.
        National Estuarine Research Reserve System.--The National Estuarine
    Research Reserve System is a network of protected areas established for
    long-term research, education and stewardship. This partnership program
    between NOAA and the coastal States offers educational opportunities
    for students, teachers and the public. In Alabama, the Weeks Bay
    Reserve offers programs that encourage student interest in science and
    research. For example, The Baldwin County Grasses in Classes Program
    involves approximately 1,000 new students each school year in habitat
    restoration. Not only do the students take an active role in growing
    the plants for restoration, but they work side by side with
    environmental professionals from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Alabama
    Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Weeks Bay Reserve to
    implement the restoration projects. It is the hands-on, ``real
    science'' experience part of this program that excites the students.
    Each school year, over 3,500 K-12 students come to the Reserve for
    fieldtrips where they participate in a wide variety of grade specific
    hands-on activities outside.
        NOAA's Ocean Exploration and Research Program.--The Ocean
    Exploration and Research Program (OER) has a formal Exploration
    Education Alliance Partnership with Dauphin Island Sea Lab, supporting
    the professional development of Alabama educators of Grades 5-12. This
    curriculum is designed to bring the science of NOAA's deep ocean
    exploration and discovery, including the STEM (science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics) disciplines that comprise it, into
    classrooms throughout the country.
        National Marine Sanctuaries Program.--The Office of National Marine
    Sanctuaries (ONMS) works with partner organizations, on location and in
    classrooms, to increase the interest of students and their teachers in
    natural science through field studies and hands-on environmental
    monitoring activities, such as Ocean for Life and LiMPETS, as well as
    workshops and in-class presentations (Rivers to Reefs, Coral Reef
    Classroom, Down Under Out Yonder, and MERITO (Multi-cultural Education
    for Resource Issues Threatening the Ocean)). ONMS also reaches out to
    classrooms across the United States to engage students through
    innovative use of the world-wide web (Encyclopedia of the Sanctuaries,
    ONMS Media Library, social media, ACES: Animals in Curriculum-based
    Ecosystem Studies and other online curricula) and telepresence
    (OceansLive!, MONITOR and Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuaries
    telepresence centers, and theme missions), bringing the ocean and its
    sciences into their classroom.
        NOAA's Teacher at Sea Program.--The Teacher at Sea Program provides
    a unique environment for learning and teaching by sending kindergarten
    through college-level teachers to sea aboard NOAA research and survey
    ships to work under the tutelage of scientists and crew. The valuable
    skills and knowledge that teachers acquire are then brought to the
    classroom. NOAA's Teacher at Sea Program has supported 52 teachers from
    the Gulf States and 2 from Alabama. As an example, on June 9, 2009,
    Alabama middle school teacher, Ruth Meadows, will sail on NOAA Ship
    HENRY B. BIGELOW for two weeks. Opelika Middle School students will
    follow her adventure live on the web. Ms. Meadows will write weekly
    logs, take photos and video, and answer questions while on board the
    vessel. When she returns, she will create lesson plans about the
    science and teach her students and others in her local community.
        Educational Partnership Program (EPP).--The EPP program operates
    summer science training workshops for K-12 teachers to reach
    underserved student and teacher populations. Established under the
    auspices of five Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), NOAA's
    Cooperative Science Centers (CSCs) are located around the country,
    including the southeastern portion of the United States. These CSCs act
    as educational change agents in their training and outreach activities
    for K-12 teachers and students with science content workshops for
    teachers and weather camps for students. EPP provides financial
    assistance, through competitive processes, to students and Minority
    Serving Institutions that support the training of students and research
    in NOAA mission sciences.
        National Ocean Science Bowl.--NOAA supports this national program
    that offers opportunities to encourage and engage students in learning
    more about science and scientific research. The National Ocean Sciences
    Bowl (NOSB) is an academic competition for high school students
    focusing on ocean science, technology and maritime history and policy.
    The program has 25 regional events around the country including the
    Hurricane Bowl, which includes schools from panhandle of Florida,
    Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
        JASON Project.--The JASON Project is a program that uses technology
    to engage students in learning about science and technology by
    connecting them to explorers and explorations of our planet. The JASON
    Project engages students and their teachers through a variety of media
    and online experiences. NOAA works closely with the JASON Project to
    involve NOAA scientists in missions that explore aspects of Earth.
    JASON offers professional development to teachers who want to integrate
    this program into their classroom teaching.
        National Science Teachers Association Partnership.--NOAA has
    maintained a strong partnership with the National Science Teachers
    Association (NSTA), the world's largest science education organization.
    Through that partnership, opportunities are provided for teachers to
    have face-to-face learning as well as online seminars and resources.
    NOAA partnered with NSTA at the recent national conference in New
    Orleans in March 2009, providing science education updates and teaching
    materials to many teachers from coastal States.
        Other NOAA Education Efforts.--That NOAA also has several centers
    around the country that engage with the public, local schools and
    educational institutions. NOAA's Weather Forecast Office in Huntsville,
    Alabama developed a series of weather educational presentations using
    the NASA Digital learning network. The presentations were delivered via
    teleconferencing to 20 schools across the United States, training
    around 600 elementary and middle school students and teachers in the
    NWS Jetstream and Professor Weather curriculum.
        NOAA also manages several education websites, widely used by
    audiences across the country, containing tutorials, lesson plans,
    interactive activities and games, and a wealth of information about
    coastal ecology, weather, pollution, hurricanes, sea level, global
    positioning, tides and currents that teachers can incorporate into
    their classrooms. The Lesson Plan Library includes over 50 lessons that
    middle and high school teachers can use to supplement their mathematics
    and science curricula.
        Question. In December the NPOESS total life cycle cost estimate
    increased by $1 billion to $13.6 billion. The updated estimate
    reflected additional costs for the development of the Visible Infrared
    Imager. What degree of confidence do you have in the new cost and
    schedule estimates?
        Answer. The December 2008 life cycle cost estimate of $13.6 billion
    reflects an updated Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) signed in 2008.
    The cost estimate included an update to the operations and support
    costs of approximately $1.1 billion that was not part of the 2006 Nunn-
    McCurdy certification. The estimate also included an increase of
    approximately $300 million of additional development costs due to
    program development challenges with Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer
    Suite (VIIRS) and Cross-track Infrared Sensor (CrIS) sensors
    encountered to that point.
        Cost estimation for the NPOESS Program has followed the standard
    Department of Defense acquisition processes of estimating near the 50
    percent confidence level. This means the program has approximately a 50
    percent chance of successfully executing within budget. This confidence
    level has a higher level of risk of future cost growth than is now
    standard with NOAA programs and it is an issue we are exploring. NOAA
    policy now requires that budgets reflect estimates with a confidence of
    80 percent, which helps to ensure that a program has a high probability
    of remaining within its budget through the life of the program.
        Because of the importance of accurate budget planning, I have
    directed NOAA to work with the other NPOESS Executive Committee
    agencies, DOD and NASA, to develop an estimate at the 80 percent
    confidence level.
        Question. If you are confident tell us why since every other
    estimate has turned out to be grossly exaggerated.
        Answer. We recognize the importance of ensuring cost stability to
    the NPOESS program and are working with NASA and DOD to produce and
    evaluate alternative cost estimates. As noted, because of the
    importance of accurate budget planning, I have directed NOAA to work
    with the other NPOESS Executive Committee agencies, DOD and NASA, to
    develop an estimate at the 80 percent confidence level.
        Question. What is the level of risk to continuity of weather and/or
    climate data and what contingency plans are being considered?
        Answer. For the polar-orbiting satellites, the on-orbit and
    recently launched satellites are performing well and there is no
    immediate risk to data continuity for NOAA's weather and climate
    missions. We are concerned about the fragility of the constellation
    that begins to occur in 2013. This risk to data continuity occurs in
    the 2013 timeframe due to the schedule delays that the National Polar-
    orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) is facing.
        NOAA is placing highest priority on the acquisition of this system
    to mitigate this risk. NOAA will use data from NASA's NPOESS
    Preparatory Project (NPP) sensors to produce data that meet or exceed
    the data from NOAA-19 (our current operational satellite). We have
    plans in place to make operational use of the data from the NPP
    spacecraft by increasing the number of products NOAA had planned to
    generate from the NPP system as a risk reduction mission.
        NOAA has a contingency plan in the event there is a failure of any
    of its operational systems. This plan depends on using existing NOAA
    satellite assets, leveraging data from NASA and Department of Defense
    environmental satellites, and forging partnerships with international
    space agencies to acquire data needed to support NOAA's operational
    weather and climate mission. NOAA is also investigating opportunities
    to fly a mission with the legacy imager Advanced Very High Resolution
    Radiometer (AVHRR) in the event VIIRS continues to experience
    developmental challenges
        Question. Safe and sustainable seafood is vital to the U.S. economy
    and food security. The development of a sustainable marine aquaculture
    industry will provide jobs to a commercial fishing industry severely
    depressed by competition from imported seafood products. Our Nation
    should work to reduce seafood imports and ensure the viability of
    economically and culturally important water dependent communities.
    Realizing the potential benefits of marine aquaculture will address the
    environmental, engineering and production needs of the fledgling
    offshore marine aquaculture sector.
        What research, extension, and marketing programs will the
    Department of Commerce provide to foster development of a sustainable
    and diverse marine aquaculture industry while also protecting and
    strengthening independent and family-owned fishing operations?
        Answer. Research.--The Department of Commerce, through NOAA, has a
    number of competitive external grants programs available to fund marine
    aquaculture research, including the National Marine Aquaculture
    Initiative, the Small Business Innovation Research Program, and the
    Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program. NOAA funds internal marine
    aquaculture research at NMFS, OAR, and NOS science centers.
        NOAA's external and internal research funding supports a wide range
    of research topics, including: development of environmentally sound
    aquaculture practices for both finfish and shellfish, development of
    alternative feeds (e.g., substituting plant-based proteins for fish
    meal and fish oil), surveys to inform decisions on where to site
    aquaculture operations, stock enhancement to rebuild overfished and
    depleted species, and genetics and disease research.
        Extension.--NOAA's Sea Grant program combines research and
    outreach/extension efforts for marine aquaculture that have contributed
    to the creation of several new aquaculture-based industries. These
    industries include the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic soft shell
    crab industry, the Pacific Northwest oyster and clam industry, the
    hybrid striped bass industry, and the Mid-Atlantic hard clam industry.
    In addition, Sea Grant investments have helped to establish new
    businesses throughout the United States, and have provided improved
    technologies to these businesses. The combined impact of Sea Grant-
    developed technology amounts to at least $100 million annually and
    supports thousands of jobs in the United States.
        Marketing.--The National Marine Fisheries Service operates the
    voluntary Seafood Inspection Program. This program is an outgrowth of
    the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 that provides voluntary
    inspection and certification program on a fee-for-service basis. This
    program offers a variety of professional inspection services which
    assure compliance with all applicable food regulations. In addition,
    product quality evaluation, grading and certification services on a
    product lot basis are also provided. Benefits include the ability to
    apply official marks, such as the U.S. Grade A, Processed Under Federal
    Inspection (PUFI) and Lot Inspection.
        In addition, some funding for marine aquaculture marketing programs
    has been provided through competitive grants programs.
        Question. Two Federal agencies have historically played significant
    roles in aquaculture, USDA and NOAA. What are the Department's plans to
    increase interagency collaborations among USDA, NOAA, EPA, NSF and
    others to provide a greater level of support to aquaculture?
        Answer. The primary nexus for inter-agency collaboration on marine
    aquaculture issues is the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA). The
    JSA was created by the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 and is chaired
    by the Secretary of Agriculture. The JSA operates under the auspices of
    the Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology
    Policy. The JSA serves as the Federal interagency coordinating body to
    increase the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal
    research, technology transfer, and assistance programs in support of a
    globally competitive, technologically advanced, and environmentally
    sound aquaculture industry in the United States. The JSA has three
    active working groups/task forces--the Working Group on Aquaculture
    Drugs, Vaccines and Pesticides; the National Aquatic Animal Health Plan
    Task Force; and the National Aquaculture Research and Technology Task
    Force. NOAA is active on the National Aquaculture Research and
    Technology Task Force and the National Aquatic Animal Health Plan Task
    Force, and represents the Department of Commerce on the JSA's Executive
    Committee.
        EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) both issue permit for
    marine aquaculture projects. NOAA, through both NMFS and OAR, works
    with both EPA and COE to provide technical review and advice on a range
    of marine aquaculture permitting issues. If NOAA is granted authority
    to issue permits for aquaculture operations in Federal waters (e.g.,
    through national legislation or under existing mandates such as the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act), NOAA will
    work with EPA and COE to coordinate regulatory roles and permit
    reviews.
        Question. According to NOAA data, the Southeast United States has
    experienced over 50 weather-related disasters over the past 28 years
    that resulted in losses of $1 billion or more. That's more than any
    other region of the country. In Alabama, severe weather has resulted in
    148 deaths, 1,723 injuries, and property losses of almost $5 billion
    over the past 18 years. Even a small reduction in the impact of severe
    weather could save many lives and billions of dollars.
        Are the current NOAA assets and infrastructure in the Southeast
    adequate to address the death, injuries and destruction caused by
    severe weather there?
        Answer. We agree the Southeast United States experiences a
    significant number of destructive severe weather events each year: and
    more than any of the other five NWS regions across the Nation. However,
    the United States in total experiences more severe weather events than
    any other country in the world. As such, severe weather is a national
    and not a regional issue. We believe current NOAA assets and
    infrastructure across the Southeast are adequate to address the severe
    weather regime. NOAA's severe weather statistics show NWS forecasts and
    warnings are meeting or exceeding the national GPRA goals.
        Currently, NOAA operates 122 Weather Forecast Offices (WFO) and 13
    River Forecast Centers (RFC). The Southeast (Mississippi, Louisiana,
    Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina,) is home to 16 of the
    122 WFO's and 3 of the 13 RFC's (West Gulf RFC, Lower Mississippi RFC,
    and the Southeast RFC). NOAA's National Hurricane Center and its sister
    research lab (AOML/Hurricane Research Division) are physically located
    in the Southeast (Miami, Florida).
        To improve services for the southeast and elsewhere across the
    Nation, NOAA has begun the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project to
    improve our forecasts of hurricane track, intensity and storm surge. We
    are also implementing dual polarization of our Doppler radars, which
    will improve the detection of severe weather and improve our warning
    accuracy. We are also engaged with the university research community
    and conduct our own research projects to improve our understanding of
    severe weather events to improve our warnings.
        Question. Although the Southeast experiences the worst weather in
    the Nation, NOAA labs and cooperative research programs are
    concentrated in other areas of the country. How can NOAA justify this
    misallocation of resources when it's clear the Southeast is the region
    most at risk?
        Answer. While our data shows the most severe storms and hurricanes
    impact the southeast, the Alaska region might argue they have
    consistently some of the worst weather in the Nation. NOAA labs are
    concentrated in areas with similar interests and to leverage expertise
    in the Federal, academic, and private sectors. The NOAA Severe Storms
    Research Laboratory and the Storm Prediction Center, with national
    forecast responsibility for severe storms, are collocated with the
    Norman Forecast office and the University of Oklahoma to leverage the
    synergy, capability, research, and knowledge that each component
    offers. NOAA's National Hurricane Center is located on the campus of
    the Florida International University and near its sister research lab
    (AOML/Hurricane Research Division) in Miami, Florida. Here, too, NOAA
    leverages expertise and synergy to improve understanding of the weather
    phenomena and improve services. NOAA has a Cooperative Institute for
    Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS) in association with the
    University of Miami and the NOAA facilities in Miami Florida. CIMAS
    focuses on Marine, ecosystem, and atmospheric research. In 2006, NOAA
    established the Northern Gulf Institute (NGI) at Stennis Space Center,
    Mississippi, in partnership with Mississippi State University.
        Question. Severe weather develops differently in the humid
    Southeast than in other areas. Would you agree that there is much more
    that can be done by NOAA in terms of research and planning focused on
    the unique weather of the Southeast that can help address these issues?
        Answer. As a science agency striving to constantly improve
    services, we agree more research can aid our understanding and
    prediction of severe weather events in the southeast and across the
    rest of the Nation as well. To help address this, the President's
    fiscal year 2010 Budget increases funding for research to improve
    severe weather forecasts, including funding to accelerate improvements
    in hurricane intensity and track forecasts.
        Question. Will NOAA support a long-term commitment to improve the
    infrastructure related to weather, climate and hydrology in the
    Southeast in order to reduce the number of deaths and injuries and the
    multi-billion dollar losses in the Southeast due to severe weather?
        Answer. NOAA has a long-term commitment to improve the
    infrastructure related to forecasting weather, climate and hydrology in
    the Southeast and elsewhere across the Nation to help protect life and
    property and enhance the economy. It is our mission and we look forward
    to working with Congress to attain our goals.
        Question. Can you provide an update on a proposal to NOAA by the
    University of Alabama in Huntsville to establish a NOAA Cooperative
    Institute for Remote Sensing on that campus? I know UAH has been
    working with NOAA for some time now on this proposed institute. This
    institute would take advantage of the world-class atmospheric research
    programs at UAH using satellite remote sensing.
        Answer. NOAA has been impressed by the University of Alabama in
    Huntsville (UAH) research programs, particularly its work in the area
    of air quality and remote sensing. NOAA's Cooperative Institute policy
    requires that each Cooperative Institute must be competed in a group
    competition. NOAA will continue to work with UAH as it plans its
    competition for new Cooperative Institutes.
        Question. What needs to be accomplished in order to make this
    institute a reality?
        Answer. NOAA has encouraged UAH to submit an application to any of
    NOAA's calls for Cooperative Institute competitions, either as the
    primary institute or in partnership with a primary institute. NOAA
    intends to issue a Federal Register notice in the summer 2009
    soliciting proposals for Cooperative Institutes.
        Question. Can you give me a timeline in which you think this
    institute could be accomplished?
        Answer. Establishment of a Cooperative Institute from the summer
    2009 request for proposals could occur as early as July 1, 2010.

                                      NIST

        Question. The Federal Information Security Management Act charges
    NIST with creating mandatory security standards for all non-classified
    Federal information systems. Our Nation's cyber infrastructure is
    facing a growing threat from Russian and Chinese hackers. Recent news
    accounts have brought up the real possibility of our Nation's power
    grid being brought down by these hackers. Given the seriousness of this
    threat, is the annual appropriation of approximately $25 million
    provided to NIST enough to address these threats?
        Answer. Cybersecurity is a major concern, and NIST plays a vital
    role in ensuring that our Federal systems are secure. NIST will support
    the research necessary to enable and to provide the cybersecurity
    specifications, standards, assurance processes, training and technical
    expertise needed to secure U.S. Government and critical infrastructure
    information systems. NIST must continue to work freely and openly with
    industry and internationally. NIST cybersecurity activities also need
    to be closely coordinated with national security and both domestic and
    international private sector cybersecurity programs. As NIST formulates
    future budgets, it will continue to place a high priority in the area
    of cybersecurity, consistent with NIST's mission and role.
        Question. The Administration has recently conducted a ``60-Day
    Review'' of all Federal cyber security systems. It was stated that this
    ``review will develop a strategic framework to ensure that U.S.
    Government cyber security initiatives are appropriately integrated,
    resourced and coordinated with Congress and the private sector''.
    Because the Department of Commerce is responsible for several key
    aspects of Federal cyber security, can you share your thoughts on the
    review?
        Answer. The content of the Administration's ``60-Day Review'' has
    not yet been released.
        Question. The Smart Grid integrates digital information technology
    to transform the Nation's electric system into a dynamic system with
    improved reliability, security and efficiency. NIST is responsible for
    developing the standards framework associated with a future smart grid.
    As part of this effort you recently announced that you would chair a
    meeting with CEO's to begin the process for reaching agreement on smart
    grid standards. How else is NIST engaged with the private sector in its
    efforts to develop this framework?
        Answer. In addition to the CEO meeting, attended by 74 CEO's and
    public sector leaders from around the country, NIST, through its
    contract with Electric Power Research Institute, has organized a series
    of public workshops to engage the private sector in developing the
    framework. Approximately 430 representatives of electric utilities,
    electric industry manufacturers, IT and telecom providers, industry
    associations, standards development organizations, and universities
    participated in the April workshop. Over 680 Smart Grid representatives
    attended the May 19-20 workshop, and hundreds more are expected at the
    July 2009 workshop. A web-based collaboration tool is also being used
    to allow individuals and organizations who cannot attend the workshops
    to be informed of progress and submit comments.
        Question. NOAA and NIST play key roles in climate change. Mr.
    Secretary, there is a lot of talk about the need for a ``cap and
    trade'' program to reduce the growth in emission of green house gases.
    A ``cap and trade'' system is not the answer, but we do need to develop
    technologies that allow industries to produce with fewer emissions.
        As the Department charged with overseeing American industry, what
    are your plans for developing and adopting these technologies?
        Answer. NIST partners with U.S. industry in many ways to support
    and help it adopt technologies and other processes which lead to
    reduced energy consumption or the use of alternative energy sources to
    reduce carbon emissions. As an example, NIST works with manufacturers
    of continuous emission monitoring equipment to ensure measurement
    accuracy at the source. Such information enables the user to make more
    informed decisions about energy consumption, which can lead to reduced
    energy consumption.
        Further, NIST performs critical measurements and standards work in
    a variety of areas such as:
      --Smart Grid.--NIST is partnering with industry and other Federal
            agencies to guide the standards development process which will
            ensure interoperability of the Smart Grid and associated
            devices. For example, smart meters, to which NIST measurement
            science is fundamentally important, can have a positive impact
            on consumption by informing consumers on the best time to use
            energy.
      --Green Buildings.--NIST is working to provide the measurement
            science that will enable the development, deployment, and use
            of energy technologies useful to the building sector. For
            example, the use of solid-state lighting, advanced building
            materials and smart heating and air conditioning systems will
            lead to more energy efficient buildings.
      --Alternative Energy.--NIST is working with industry to provide
            metrology tools, techniques, and standards to enable the
            evolution of energy technologies from pilot projects to full
            commercial applications through the development of technical
            infrastructure. For example, decreasing the cost of and
            increasing the efficiency of solar energy will enable the shift
            toward a larger U.S. share of the solar marketplace.
        The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program
    works directly with small manufacturers to:
      --Reduce demand for electricity and fuel, reduce waste and
            contaminants in the production process, and incorporate green
            design in manufactured parts;
      --Help companies to identify opportunities for reducing the energy
            footprint at all tiers of the production process;
      --Assist manufacturing companies (especially auto suppliers) in
            market diversification efforts, to transition from supplying
            declining industries to making components for growing
            industries such as renewable energy providers and medical
            devices;
      --Collaborate with renewable energy providers to identify new
            technologies from Federal labs and universities (technology
            scouting) and new suppliers (supplier scouting) to assist them
            with increased production demands; and
      --Work with the Department of Labor to support the training needs of
            workers and employers in ``green job training'' and in support
            of the emerging energy efficiency sector.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, this Committee, as well as others, have
    dedicated billions of dollars over the last several years to improve
    radio interoperability for first responders. One of my priorities has
    been to ensure that a process exists that will make sure that these
    radio systems being purchased will work together, regardless of the
    manufacturer. I know that NIST has been one of the leaders in putting
    this program in place. Can you tell the Committee where we stand in the
    development of this program?
        Answer. The NIST Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) and
    DHS' Office for Interoperability and Compatibility has built a
    coalition of public safety users and communications equipment
    manufacturers to create the independent Compliance Assessment Program
    (CAP), which allows Project 25 (P25) equipment suppliers to formally
    demonstrate their products' compliance with a select group of
    requirements by testing it in recognized labs.
        Test laboratories demonstrate their competence through a rigorous
    and objective assessment process, conducted by NIST/OLES and based on
    internationally accepted standards. The first batch of laboratory
    assessments began in December 2008 and continued through April 2009.
    During the ssessment, the NIST/OLES laboratory assessment team examined
    equipment, facilities, test reports, and the management system;
    observed demonstrations of testing; reviewed quality and technical
    records; and reviewed the credentials of staff to determine their
    competency in particular areas of expertise.
        On May 6, 2009, DHS/OIC recognized eight laboratories to conduct
    this equipment testing. P25 manufacturers will soon begin to submit
    their equipment through the testing process, and will release
    standardized summary test reports from these recognized laboratories,
    along with declarations of compliance. This documentation will be
    available on a publicly accessible website to help equipment purchasers
    make informed decisions. The response community will be able to select
    from multiple vendors that build innovative products according to the
    same standards. This documentation will serve to increase the public's
    confidence in the performance, conformance, and interoperability of P25
    equipment.
        Additional laboratories may continue to apply to the program and
    will continue to be assessed, further expanding the pool of
    laboratories that manufacturers may choose to test their equipment.
        Question. Also, how is the program being used by the various
    Federal grant agencies providing funds for interoperable communications
    equipment?
        Answer. A 6-month grace period provides equipment manufacturers and
    laboratories time to perform the necessary interoperability tests on
    equipment. After 6 months, equipment delivered to grantees receiving
    funds following SAFECOM grant guidance, which includes numerous Federal
    grant programs, will be required to have the supporting documentation.
        At this time, the following Federal grant programs are leveraging
    the P25 CAP:
      --DHS Interoperability Grants
      --NTIA PSIC Grants
      --COPS Interoperable Communications Grant Program
        In addition, NIST has been informed that all Department of Defense
    radio procurements will require compliance to the P25 CAP. This
    program, through grant guidance, provides a means of verifying that
    Federal grant dollars are being invested in standardized solutions and
    equipment that promote interoperability for the public safety
    community.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, we have been hearing that some first
    responders, especially firefighters, are having some issues with the
    new digital radio systems. Apparently, these new digital radios don't
    work as well as the older systems when there is loud background noise.
    As I understand it, your people at the Public Safety Communications
    Research program in Boulder are working on this issue. Can you tell me
    what you have found to date and what is being done to address the
    issue?
        Answer. When a firefighter's life is in danger, the ability to
    communicate a call for help and to warn others is essential. However,
    some background noises created by firefighting equipment, such as
    chainsaws and personal alert safety systems (PASS), can interfere with
    digital communication. Sometimes this interference is so severe that it
    can prevent a firefighter and the person talking with them from
    understanding each other at the most critical moments. To understand
    how background noise affects voice communications and to determine what
    technology improvements are needed to overcome any background noise
    issues, NIST/OLES has worked with practitioners to develop and
    implement tests that measure how digital radios operate in the presence
    of loud background noise.
        NIST designed and conducted subjective listening experiments that
    enabled quantification of the performance issues being reported in the
    field. Disseminating this information will ensure that voice
    implementations by manufacturers will meet the operational needs of
    public safety officials. NIST worked directly with fire departments to
    obtain high-quality recordings of typical firefighting noise and
    partnered with practitioners from various agencies to conduct numerous
    tests with three different communications systems in nine different
    noise environments. NIST has identified immediate behavioral,
    procedural, and technical steps agencies can take to avoid or minimize
    emergency response background noise.
        A technical report was published in June 2008 describing the
    testing and results. The report, which is available at
    ww.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/ntia-rpt/08-453/, notes that in some
    environments analog radios performed better than digital radios and
    explains that in some environments no radios performed well. This
    report is supplemented by a July 2008 report from the International
    Association of Fire Chiefs, which recommends operational changes for
    fire agencies using digital radios. The IAFC report is available at
    www.iafc.org.
        Since issuing the June 2008 report, NIST/OLES has begun a second
    round of audio quality testing with practitioners that will continue to
    inform our understanding of this audio quality problem. Additionally,
    this second round of testing will identify potential areas that could
    be improved in order to mitigate the problems being reporting by
    firefighters.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the recent National Academies of Science
    (NAS) report was a sobering assessment of the state of forensic science
    in this country. There is no doubt we have to make some serious
    improvements. Looking at the report, it is obvious that the authors see
    your Department, especially NIST, as a key element in forging
    improvements in forensic science in the United States. What steps is
    the Department of Commerce taking to fulfill the leadership role NIST
    is being called upon to provide to the government to help improve
    forensic science in this country?
        Answer. In anticipation of the publication of the NAS report
    entitled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States--A Path
    Forward, NIST undertook plans to engage other Federal agencies with
    forensic science programs. Also, a NIST scientist was a member of the
    NAS Committee that worked on this report. The NIST Office of Law
    Enforcement Standards Forensic Science Program is already working with
    other forensic science agencies to address the NAS recommendations: to
    develop standards and validate forensic science protocols; to conduct
    research and development of improved forensic science technologies; to
    develop interoperability of automated fingerprint identification
    systems; and to identify strategies to mitigate contextual bias in
    impression evidence analysis.
        Further, in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice,
    NIST has begun a working group focused on Human Factors in Latent Print
    Analysis to study human errors in latent fingerprint testing. NIST has
    impaneled several dozen experts from Federal, State and local crime
    laboratories, and statisticians and psychologists from academia, to
    evaluate and reduce contextual bias in fingerprint analysis. Finally,
    NIST is working closely with OSTP to address the NAS recommendations at
    the Federal level, and maintains frequent dialog with State and local
    crime laboratories, academia and the private sector to implement
    improvements in forensic science in the United States.

            CENSUS--CHANGES TO DECENNIAL CENSUS IN FISCAL YEAR 2009

        Question. Over the past year we have witnessed the decision by the
    Census to revert to a paper census, rather than continue forward with
    using handheld computers for non-response follow up. This has raised
    the total cost of the 2010 Census to $15 billion. There is still time
    for further issues to emerge that could drive this cost even higher.
    This is an effort that gets highlighted to the public once every 10
    years, but has been almost a decade in planning with less than
    spectacular execution of cost saving improvements. Please provide what,
    if any, significant changes have occurred to plans for the Decennial
    since the beginning of the fiscal year?
        Answer. Other than the expansion from the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for program enhancements to our partnership and
    outreach/advertising efforts and the Coverage Follow-Up activities
    (designed to help find and resolve situations where respondents were
    unsure who to include on their questionnaire), no significant changes
    to plans have occurred since the beginning of the current fiscal year.
    As to issues or unexpected events that might yet emerge and have a
    large cost impact on the census, such as a much lower than anticipated
    mail response rate, or a major natural disaster, we have included
    contingency funding in both the fiscal year 2009 amended budget and the
    fiscal year 2010 President's Budget Request. These contingency funds
    are part of the estimated lifecycle total of $14.7 billion.
        Question. Have the budget and schedule estimates that Census has
    been using for the 2010 Census been an adequate forecast of the actual
    costs we now see for the Census?
        Answer. We have made changes to our budget and schedule estimates
    over the decade as a result of testing results, program decisions,
    revised operational plans, and the like. Given that our actual plans
    for 2010 Census operations must be finalized, and funding requests
    made, nearly 2 years in advance of operations, it is always difficult
    to predict how external events and conditions might affect things
    during implementation. For example, when we prepared our staffing,
    budget, and schedules for the Address Canvassing operation now
    underway, we could not have forecast the current economic conditions,
    or how those conditions might affect such things as our ability to
    recruit and retain the workforce needed for that operation. We will now
    examine the results of the Address Canvassing operation to determine
    whether we might need to make changes to budget and schedule
    assumptions for future field operations. At this time, we believe we
    have the funds necessary to conduct the 2010 Census.
        Question. How have the funds provided in the stimulus been used to
    mitigate problems that have emerged as we move toward the 2010 Census?
        Answer. $250 million of the funding from the ARRA is being used for
    program enhancements to our partnership and outreach/advertising
    efforts to minority communities and hard-to-reach populations, and to
    enhance our Coverage Follow-Up activities (designed to help find and
    resolve situations where respondents were unsure who to include on
    their questionnaire). The increased funding for partnership and
    advertising will help us maximize the mail response rate next year, and
    thereby reduce the need to conduct expensive personal visit follow-up
    to non-responding households. One of our largest risks for the 2010
    Census is a mail response rate lower than our budgeted rate of 64
    percent--we estimate that each 1 percentage point change in the mail
    response rate will require an additional $80 $90 million in costs to
    visit the non-responding addresses, and there also are numerous
    logistical challenges if we must recruit and train a significantly
    larger workforce than planned.
        Question. For the activities related to the 2010 Census, the bureau
    will hire hundreds of thousands of temporary workers in a short period
    of time. The Census initially relies on the FBI to screen potential
    employees and then the Census Bureau conducts further follow up
    reviews. In the last Census, 930,000 applicants, around 25 percent of
    the total, were flagged by the FBI. Many of these jobs require going
    door to door in order to get the information required for the 2010
    Census. I am concerned about the safety of the public as they are asked
    to open their doors by representatives of the government. How can the
    public be assured of their safety when, according to the 2000 Census
    data, there is a 1 in 6 chance that the person at the door has a record
    that has been flagged by the FBI?
        Answer. The Census Bureau has no data to support the assertion that
    1 in 6 enumerators may have a criminal history record. The Census 2000
    Census Hiring and Employment Check (CHEC) System data does show that 25
    percent of applicants were identified through the FBI's name-based
    screening process as having a potential criminal record. However, after
    manual review, 312,544 applicants (approximately 8.6 percent of
    applicants) were determined to be potential matches to criminal history
    records that showed significant arrests.
        These applicants were not hired. Rather, these applicants were
    notified by letter and advised that if they wanted to be considered for
    employment they must either provide fingerprints to allow a fingerprint
    search of FBI records, or provide court records indicating that the
    criminal history noted was resolved. Approximately 93 percent of those
    applicants with potential matches did not respond to this letter and
    were listed as unavailable for hire.
        For Address Canvassing and other 2009 field operations, the Census
    Bureau is fingerprinting all hires at their first day of training, as
    an additional security check. Their fingerprints are electronically
    submitted to the FBI for identification and the results are returned to
    the Census Bureau electronically. So far, the turnaround time for this
    process has been approximately 24 hours. The Census Bureau will use
    this experience to determine whether fingerprinting will be carried out
    for 2010 field operations.
        If there is no match to the submitted identifiers, these employees
    are cleared for field work. If the submission results in a match, the
    CHEC Office will flag the case for manual review, and the employee's
    work will be suspended until a final decision is made. If after review
    the employee is deemed to be a potential risk, they will be offered the
    opportunity to provide mitigating information. If after manual review
    the employee is determined suitable for continued employment, they will
    be placed back in active status and will be given additional work.
        Question. What criteria does the Census use to determine if an
    applicant's past criminal history disqualifies them for employment?
        Answer. The criteria for the CHEC program are designed to identify
    those applicants who, based on their criminal history background,
    present an unacceptable risk to the process of gathering information
    for the Decennial Census. In the course of making determinations on
    applicants based upon the criteria established for this purpose, the
    Census Bureau is mindful of the delicate balance between hiring persons
    of the highest integrity to represent the government and the need to
    hire quickly an unusually large workforce for positions to perform
    limited information gathering duties for periods of 6 weeks or less.
        At the same time, the Census Bureau realizes that those who are
    hired will, even if for a limited period, represent the Census Bureau
    and the government and, in that capacity, will be invited into private
    homes and communities for the purpose of collecting information. Thus,
    we follow the general guidelines below to ensure that each applicant is
    an acceptable risk to collect census information from residents of a
    community as a representative of our government.
        Most FBI rapsheets do not list the final criminal justice
    dispositions; therefore, applicants will be asked for official court
    documentation showing the final outcome of any arrest(s) that contain
    the following:
      --manufacturing/sale of any controlled substance
      --breaking & entering
      --burglary
      --robbery
      --embezzlement
      --grand theft
      --violent crimes against person or property (includes assault,
            battery, kidnapping, manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter,
            murder, arson)
      --crimes against children
      --sexual offense (includes sexual harassment, sexual misconduct,
            sexual assault, rape, statutory rape)
      --weapons charge (includes carrying concealed weapon, possession of
            illegal weapon, sale of firearms)
      --terrorism
      --any pattern of arrests (3 or more arrests in the last 15 years)
      --any arrest within the last 36 months
        A conviction for the above offenses will likely disqualify an
    applicant for employment. However, this list is not all-inclusive;
    there may be additional types of offenses for which a conviction
    depending on the date, severity, and nature of the offense, may render
    an individual unsuitable for hire.
        Question. What qualifications do those that screen potential hires
    have for making evaluations about the safety of the public?
        Answer. Census Hiring and Employment Check (CHEC) Office senior
    staff worked on the 2000 Census, and since that time they have been
    responsible for the suitability reviews of low-risk fulltime FTEs at
    the Census Bureau's Headquarters and Regional Offices. The USDA
    Graduate School trains all staff in Office of Personnel Management
    Suitability Standards.
        Temporary staff are comprised of experienced law enforcement
    professionals, such as retired police officers, and are familiar with
    suitability evaluations. Additionally, all adjudicators were given
    extensive in-house system training and completed an FBI training course
    on criminal history records and adjudication procedures.
        Question. Address canvassing is one of the most critical operations
    for the success of the Decennial Census. It is the process by which the
    Census identifies all of the potential places of residence for sending
    2010 Census forms. The canvassing will also include the use of hand-
    held computers to set GPS markers for each address that will further
    inform States as they begin the process of redistricting for their
    representation in the House of Representatives. In light of the
    management challenges facing the 2010 Census, did AdCan operations
    begin on schedule?
        Answer. Yes. Moreover, the field listing for the Address Canvassing
    operation began in eight offices on March 30, one week ahead of
    schedule. Some listings were completed prior to March 30 as part of
    training sessions.
        Question. What have the early results been with the hand-held units
    and when will Census complete its quality assessment of Address
    Canvassing operations?
        Answer. The handheld computers are generally working well. We have
    experienced several issues that required immediate resolution.
    Corrective steps were put in place, and work is continuing on or ahead
    of schedule.
        The Address Canvassing Quality Profile, which reports on results
    from the Quality Check operation, is scheduled to be completed by the
    end of November 2010. The Address Canvassing Assessment, which is a
    broad review on the entire Address Canvassing operation, is scheduled
    for completion in August of 2010 and an assessment of the Address
    Canvassing automation is scheduled for February 2011.
        Question. During these field operations, are census workers
    collecting significantly more addresses than initially identified by
    the Geography Division at the start of address canvassing?
        Answer. Early indications based on preliminary review and
    processing of the Address Canvassing results have not shown anything
    significantly beyond our expectations. Until the Address Canvassing
    operation is complete and all data processed, it will be difficult to
    assess what the final address count will be.
        Question. Based on your current collection progress, how accurate
    and complete will the results of address canvassing be?
        Answer. We do not have any mechanism to independently measure the
    accuracy of the address list following address canvassing. However, as
    part of our overall address list development program (which also
    includes updates from the U.S. Postal Service and from local, State,
    and tribal governments), we are confident the Address Canvassing
    operation is helping us ensure the most complete address file possible
    for the 2010 Census. For Address Canvassing, we have a quality control
    (QC) operation in place to check the quality of each lister's work to
    ensure they are following procedures (and to re-train them, or re-do
    their work, if necessary). We also conduct a quality check for each
    assignment area to ensure the overall canvassing results are of
    acceptable accuracy. It would be prohibitively expensive to conduct a
    QC check large enough to ensure 100 percent accuracy for all
    assignments--the QC operation we have in place is designed to ensure
    that the average critical error rate does not exceed 8.1 percent.
        Question. At this time, is address canvassing running on schedule,
    behind schedule, or ahead of schedule?
        Answer. Overall, Address Canvassing work throughout the country
    continues on or ahead of schedule. As of May 27, 96 percent of
    Assignment Areas (AAs) have completed all phases of the Address
    Canvassing operation, including the Quality Check, as compared to the
    established goal of 65 percent.
        Question. Are there specific areas that will finish earlier than
    expected?
        Answer. Yes, at this time, it appears that some Local Census Office
    areas will finish earlier than scheduled.
        Question. If significant national or local problems are identified
    as this activity progresses, what are the contingency plans for
    correcting the problems and has the Census estimated the range of costs
    for ensuring this activity is properly carried out?
        Answer. Given how well the operation has gone to-date, our
    contingency planning efforts have shifted focus from plans to replace
    the Address Canvassing operation now underway, to focus on a county-
    level review of the Address Canvassing results to determine if special
    efforts are needed in selected areas. Until the completion of Address
    Canvassing and the county-level review, we won't know if contingency
    efforts will be necessary, and if so, their scope. However, contingency
    planning efforts are ongoing. As part of that effort, we are assessing
    the potential cost impacts but do not have estimates available at this
    time.
        Question. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am concerned
    about the potential for politicizing the 2010 Census. Our citizens do
    not deserve to be shortchanged because of manipulation of the results
    from the Census. Provide a detailed description of what role the White
    House is playing in the execution of the 2010 Census, including the
    person at the White House the Census must report to, and that person's
    role in directing Census activities?
        Answer. Secretary Locke has made explicit his commitment to the
    need for independence of the Census Bureau Director, that the Director
    will report to him, and that the White House has assured him that they
    have no interest in politicizing the census.
        Question. How is the Census ensuring that the integrity of the 2010
    Census data is not manipulated for political gain?
        Answer. The Census Bureau and its leadership have long recognized,
    and insisted upon, the need for statistical information of all types to
    be independent of partisan politics. If the information we produce is
    in any way considered to be manipulated by such influences, the
    credibility of the data, and of the Census Bureau, will be lost, and
    difficult (if not impossible) to restore. A key to ensuring this
    integrity is, and always has been, the Census Bureau's commitment to
    openly sharing its plans, methods, findings, and decision criteria with
    all stakeholders.
        Question. I was alarmed when I discovered that the Census had plans
    for using ACORN as a partner in the 2010 Census. ACORN employees have
    been found to be fraudulently registering voters for elections. Given
    ACORN's political history, I feel that the Census Bureau should not
    partner with organizations that have shown systemic problems with both
    accuracy and legitimacy. What is the Department of Commerce and Census
    Bureau doing to ensure that groups, such as ACORN, are adequately
    investigated prior to their involvement in something as important as
    the 2010 Census?
        Answer. The goal of the Census Bureau's partnership program is to
    combine the strengths of State, local, and tribal governments,
    community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, schools,
    media, businesses and others to ensure an accurate 2010 Census. These
    governmental and private sector businesses and organizations know their
    local conditions and circumstances better than the Census Bureau and
    have the connections in the local community to encourage and mobilize
    participation in the census. Partners are not Census Bureau employees
    and have no responsibility for counting, collecting, or processing
    census data.
        The selection of 2010 Census partners is extremely important. While
    not Census Bureau employees, partners are advocates for census
    cooperation and participation. During partnership training, detailed
    information is given to partnership specialists about the type of
    partners the Census Bureau should and should not seek partnership
    agreements with. Prior to obtaining a formal partnership agreement,
    partnership specialists also research potential partners and meet with
    them to learn more about the support and outreach activities the
    organizations can provide to help ensure an accurate count of their
    constituents.
        Census Bureau staff at the regional and national level use the
    following guidelines and criteria when identifying potential 2010
    Census partners.
        Select partner organizations that:
      --Promote the goals of the Integrated Communications Campaign to:
        --Increase mail response,
        --Improve accuracy and reduce the differential undercount, and
        --Improve cooperation with enumerators.
      --Reach and motivate households and individuals, particularly those
            who live in hard-to-count areas.
      --Have communications vehicles designed to reach their members and/or
            constituents.
      --Agree to take ownership of the outreach process to their members
            and/or constituents.
      --Have influence and respect in their community.
      --Are viewed as ``trusted voices'' by their community.
        Do not select partner organizations that:
      --Are not trusted or are viewed negatively within the community, such
            as a company or organization located within an African American
            community that has a negative reputation for mistreatment of
            African Americans or other population groups.
      --Produce products that may create a negative connotation for the
            Census Bureau, such as sexually related products.
      --Could distract from the Census Bureau's mission.
      --May make people fearful of participating in the census, such as
            groups that espouse violence or hate-crimes or extreme anti-
            immigrant views.
        Partnership specialists are trained to consult with management if
    they are in doubt about the choice of an organization or corporation as
    a 2010 Census partner. When expressing concerns to management about a
    potential partner, the staff member outlines the concerns that caused
    them to doubt the validity of a potential partner organization choice.
    We fully utilize the expertise and experience of regional management
    staff and Regional Directors during this process, since they know best
    the organizations that will or will not resonate with the hard-to-count
    populations in their regions.

                          ITA EXPANDING U.S. EXPORTING

        Question. Our long-term economic growth and job creation must
    include an exporting component. In recent years, exports have only
    accounted for 12 percent of our GDP. In fact, we export less than many
    of the major G-20 nations. Yet I hear that there are often long wait
    times for U.S. businesses who have asked the International Trade
    Administration for help breaking into new markets or for help to get
    started in exporting. I also understand that the number of people you
    have in ITA has been declining and it appears as if your budget is
    relatively flat for export promotion activities. What can the
    Department and ITA do to help more U.S. firms begin exporting and to
    further expand our Nation's exporting capabilities?
        Answer. ITA plays an important role in creating and sustaining
    high-paying jobs through export assistance, especially for small and
    medium-sized businesses, and market access and advocacy support to
    ensure fair trade. ITA's efforts are focused on increasing the number
    of American exporters and on increasing the number of markets to which
    American firms export. The Commerce Department, as the chair of the
    interagency Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), also has the
    lead role in ensuring that all U.S. export promotion programs and
    resources are deployed in a strategic and effective manner. I will work
    to ensure that the Department's export promotion programs, and those of
    the TPCC member agencies, maximize the competitiveness of U.S.
    businesses in the global marketplace. In the months ahead, I will be
    consulting with other TPCC agencies to develop a strong set of national
    priorities for boosting U.S. exports.
        Question. Mr. Secretary is there currently a hiring freeze at the
    Foreign Commercial Service (FCS)?
        Answer. No, but US&FCS has implemented hiring restrictions to
    ensure that budgetary resources go where they are most needed.
        Question. Can you tell us how long this has been in effect and what
    is the amount of their estimated budget shortfall?
        Answer. These hiring restrictions have been in effect since October
    2008. We anticipate that ITA will be able to manage effectively within
    its budgetary resources.

                                  NTIA--ICANN

        Question. Mr. Secretary, the responsibility for managing the ever
    expanding universe of Internet domain names used to be handled by the
    Department of Commerce, but is now handled by the Internet Corporation
    for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under a memorandum of
    understanding with the Department called the Joint Partnership
    Agreement, or ``JPA.'' ICANN has been very open about its desires to
    terminate the JPA, which would effectively sever its ties to the U.S.
    Government.
        Do you believe ICANN is ready to manage its responsibilities for
    global Internet protocol address allocation and root zone management
    for the Domain Name System (DNS) on its own?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce remains committed to preserving
    the security and stability of the Internet's domain name and addressing
    system (DNS), and any decision with respect to the future of the JPA
    will be consistent with that goal. NTIA released on April 24 a Notice
    of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comments on these issues. The public record
    developed through this process will inform any decision made about the
    JPA's future, and the Department looks forward to working with Congress
    on this important issue.
        Question. If ICANN is allowed to completely sever its ties to the
    U.S. government, how will we ensure that the voices of U.S. businesses
    (and the U.S. government, for that matter) are heeded in ICANN decision
    making?
        Answer. It is very important for U.S. business to have a voice in
    ICANN decision making. Regardless of whether the JPA is terminated,
    modified, or extended, NTIA will continue to be an active participant
    in ICANN by representing the United States government in ICANN's
    Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as well as filing comments, as
    needed, in ICANN's various public consultation processes. In addition,
    the Department's relationship with ICANN will continue, as ICANN
    currently performs the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA)
    functions under contract to the Department.
        Question. Who would ICANN then answer to?
        Answer. ICANN is a United States not-for-profit organization that
    coordinates the Internet DNS. As such, it answers to its Board of
    Directors and the stakeholders that participate in its bottom-up policy
    making process, including the GAC on which NTIA represents the United
    States government.
        Question. What evidence is there that ICANN will take U.S.
    interests and concerns seriously, since there is some question as to
    whether they have done this even while operating under the auspices of
    the JPA?
        Answer. NTIA recently released a NOI soliciting comment on these
    issues, specifically on whether there are sufficient safeguards in
    place to ensure that all stakeholder interests are adequately taken
    into account in ICANN's decision-making processes. The Department
    expects to work with Congress to ensure that these important issues are
    satisfactorily addressed.
        Question. Are you aware that ICANN's budget--which is funded
    through fees set entirely by ICANN--has grown at an annual compound
    rate of 34 percent since 1999? (In stark contrast, the budget of the
    Department of Commerce which grew at about 4 percent annually during
    that same period).
        Answer. Under the terms of the JPA, the Department of Commerce
    reviews ICANN's performance to ensure completion of the JPA tasks. The
    Department of Commerce also provides expertise and advice on certain
    discrete issues (such as processes for making the root server system
    more robust and secure). The Department does not exercise oversight in
    the traditional context of regulation and plays no role in the internal
    governance or day-to-day operations of the organization or its budget.
        Question. Do you know why ICANN has required such dramatic funding
    increases year after year?
        Answer. The continual growth of the domain name market (i.e.,
    increases each year in the number of domain names registered) has
    resulted in an increase in ICANN's budget, because a significant
    portion of the budget is comprised of fees paid by registry operators
    to ICANN.
        Question. Are you aware that its Executive Director made close to
    $1 million, including benefits, in 2007?
        Answer. The Department is aware. However, under the terms of the
    JPA, the Department of Commerce's role is limited to reviewing ICANN's
    performance to ensure completion of the JPA tasks. The Department also
    provides expertise and advice on certain discrete issues (such as
    processes for making the root server system more robust and secure).
    The Department of Commerce does not exercise oversight in the
    traditional context of regulation and plays no role in the internal
    governance or day-to-day operations of the organization, including
    issues such as executive compensation.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich

                     EDA--PEER REVIEWED EVALUATION PROCESS

        Question. In 1998, Congress established a peer review, performance
    evaluation system for the allocation of funds under EDA's University
    Center Economic Development Program. However, in 2004, EDA imposed a
    regular competition for resources distributed through the program. The
    frequent competitions have resulted in unpredictable funding levels,
    making it difficult for universities to make long-term commitments.
        What are your views on the peer-reviewed evaluation process for
    this program versus a competition?
        Answer. Section 506 of the Public Works and Economic Development
    Act requires EDA to evaluate performance: ``To determine which
    university centers are performing well and are worthy of continued
    grant assistance under this act, and which should not receive continued
    assistance, so that university centers that have not previously
    received assistance may receive assistance.''
        We believe the Congress' insight into the program was visionary and
    this requirement for competition has made the program a much stronger
    economic development resource for America's distressed communities.
    Judging by the robust competition that occurs annually, we believe the
    section has served its purpose well and helps ensure that additional
    institutions of higher education do indeed obtain the opportunity to
    compete (this year's competition is being conducted in the Atlanta and
    Seattle regional offices). This section already requires EDA to include
    peer review in its evaluation of the university centers. We think the
    requirement to include at least one other university center in the
    evaluation strikes the right balance of ensuring input by a peer into
    the evaluation, but at the same time ensuring that the final evaluation
    is conducted by career EDA professionals responsible for oversight of
    the program.
        It is important to note that university centers that wish to
    undertake larger or longer-term projects may apply and compete for
    traditional Economic Adjustment Assistance grants.
        Question. The EDA has a local match requirement of 50 percent for
    its grants. This requirement helps ensure local commitment to projects,
    and I certainly support it. However, current regulations allow EDA to
    reduce the local match in some cases. Given the current economy, would
    you support giving the Assistant Secretary broad flexibility to reduce
    matching requirements?
        Answer. As you have stated, current regulations allow EDA to reduce
    the local match requirement. Any decision to reduce the matching
    requirement is based on the relative needs of the area in which the
    project will be located and is assessed on a case by case basis. This
    process has been very effective and the current regulations allow the
    flexibility needed to make these determinations.
        Question. As part of its fiscal year 2009 appropriations, EDA was
    directed to increase its efforts to hire staff at both the regional and
    local levels. Can you please provide details on the agency's staff
    levels in its six regional offices, including field-based economic
    development representatives?
        Answer. EDA's regions have 3 vacancies out of their 122 permanent
    positions. One of these vacancies is due to a recent retirement in the
    Philadelphia Regional Office, and the position is in the process of
    being advertised. For the remaining two vacancies in the Seattle
    Regional Office, offers have been made to candidates. All 19 field-
    based economic development representative positions have been filled.

                            USPTO--STOP! INITIATIVE

        Question. I have long been a champion of strong intellectual
    property rights enforcement and outreach. President Bush established
    the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) initiative, a good deal
    of which was coordinated with and operated out of the Department of
    Commerce. I worked with my colleagues to give this initiative a
    permanent structure as part of the PRO-IP Act (Public Law 110-403).
    More recently, I joined Senators Leahy, Bayh, and Specter in a letter
    to President Obama urging him to appoint the Intellectual Property
    Enforcement Coordinator (IP Coordinator).
        Can you describe what steps the Department of Commerce is taking to
    transition the institutional knowledge related to the STOP! initiative
    to the office of the IP Coordinator?
        Answer. The USPTO, through its Office of Intellectual Property
    Policy and Enforcement (OIPPE), worked very closely with Mr. Chris
    Israel, the former U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual
    Property Enforcement. As an important part of the interagency team
    charged with implementing STOP, the USPTO was instrumental in
    spearheading three separate programs that fall under the general STOP
    initiative: (1) establishing the STOP toll free hotline; (2) posting IP
    experts in U.S. embassies in countries/regions where intellectual
    property protection and enforcement remain a challenge; (3) IP public
    awareness and outreach programs targeting small and medium sized
    companies (for full description of these initiatives, see response to
    question no. 71). All of these initiatives are fully established and
    have become important components of the STOP initiative. The USPTO is
    drafting briefing materials providing background on the development,
    maintenance and continuation of these programs, which will be provided
    to the new IP Coordinator, at his/her request. In addition, the USPTO
    is considering new ways to gauge and improve the effectiveness of these
    programs, and looks forward to sharing these thoughts with the IP
    Coordinator. The USPTO looks forward to being an integral part of the
    IP Coordinator's efforts, and to closely working with the IP
    Coordinator to fulfill his/her duties.
        Question. What specific efforts does the Commerce Department intend
    to undertake related to IP enforcement, and educating American
    companies about the need to protect intellectual property when
    conducting business abroad?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce is taking a wide variety of
    actions related to IP enforcement and educating American companies
    about the crucial importance of protecting their intellectual property
    rights when conducting business abroad.
        To avoid an overly voluminous response here, the following is
    merely a listing by category of the types of IP enforcement efforts and
    educational outreach efforts that the Department is already
    undertaking:

    Capacity Building/Technical Assistance
        Year-round IP enforcement training programs--for foreign and
    domestic judges, prosecutors, police, IP-Office officials and others--
    at the USPTO's Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), located in
    Alexandria, Virginia. In 2008 alone, GIPA provided training to more
    than 4,100 officials from 127 countries on a variety of topics,
    including IP protection and enforcement, and technology transfer.
      --Programs customized to the needs of a particular country.
      --Regional programs, such ashosting an APEC/ASEAN enforcement
            conference in June in Malaysia, and is co-sponsoring a
            companion APEC/ASEAN enforcement conference in July, in Hawaii.

    IPR Attaches
        A key IP enforcement effort over the past several years has been
    the placement of IPR Attaches in key regions around the world. The
    USPTO, FCS, and State have worked cooperatively to post six attorney-
    advisor intellectual property experts in: Bangkok, Thailand; New Delhi,
    India; Beijing and Guangzhou, China; Moscow, Russia; and, Sao Paulo,
    Brazil.
        These IP attaches provide expertise to U.S. embassies and
    consulates on IPR issues, advocate U.S. intellectual property policies,
    coordinate training on IPR matters, and assist U.S. businesses that
    rely on IPR protection abroad
    Promoting Strong IPR Enforcement In and Through International
            Agreements
        The Department, through the USPTO, ITA and other bureaus, provides
    support to the State Department and USTR, assisting in rafting,
    negotiating and implementing the intellectual property provisions of
    free trade and other international agreements. These provisions
    generally require U.S. trading partners to provide stronger, more
    effective protection for intellectual property than is required under
    the World Trade Organization's Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
    Property Rights (``TRIPs'') Agreement.
        In 2008, the Department participated in post Free Trade Agreement
    (FTA) implementation discussions and/or follow-up talks with several
    countries, including Peru and Costa Rica.
        The Department also supports USTR efforts for Trade and Investment
    Framework Agreements (TIFA) negotiations in various countries such as
    Nigeria and Indonesia, as well as in negotiating the Anti-
    Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), where the objective is to
    negotiate a new, state-of-the art agreement to combat counterfeiting
    and piracy.

    Public Awareness Efforts
                STOP
        Through the USPTO, the Department manages a hotline (1-866-999-
    HALT) that helps small-and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) leverage U.S.
    government resources to protect their intellectual property rights in
    the United States and abroad. In fiscal year 2008, the Hotline received
    1,289 calls, including calls regarding counterfeiting and piracy
    concerns with respect to China and other countries.
        The Department also maintains the www.stopfakes.gov website, which
    provides in-depth information about the STOP initiative. A key feature
    of the website is the country-specific ``toolkits'' that have been
    created by our overseas embassies to assist SMEs to understand the
    business environment and how to protect and enforce their rights in a
    particular country. There are now 16 toolkits, including toolkits for
    the BRIC countries.
        The USPTO also established the www.stopfakes.com/smallbusiness
    after a study revealed that only 15 percent of 1,000 small businesses
    that do business overseas are aware that a U.S. patent or trademark
    provides protection only in the United States.

    Public Outreach
        The Inventor's Assistance Program, run by the USPTO, reaches out to
    inventors and entrepreneurs to educate the public about the importance
    of intellectual property by hosting educational conferences, creating
    and posting computer based training modules, and posting pod casts on
    I-tunes. In addition the Office conducts live on-line chats, has
    established a mailbox for inventor questions, and has an 800 number to
    answer questions. There is also an Inventors Resource page within the
    USPTO web site that has ``plain language'' content for the public.
        The Department, through the USPTO, offers ``IP Basics'' conferences
    throughout the U.S., targeting SMEs where participants learn what
    intellectual property rights are, why they are important, and how to
    identify, protect and enforce these rights.
        Separately, the Department, through the USPTO also offers China
    intellectual property-focused programs in various cities throughout the
    United States. These programs are directed to SMEs that either are in
    China or are thinking about going to China or, for that matter, any
    SME--because many are not aware of the threat of IP theft from other
    countries and how surreptitiously it can occur.
        In 2009, the USPTO is expanding its China-related event to include
    intellectual property issues in India.
        The U.S. Export Assistance Center (USEAC) programs, run by the
    Department's U.S. & Foreign and Commercial Service (US&FCS), provide
    personalized assistance to small and medium-sized businesses in various
    cities throughout the United States.
        In fiscal year 2008, the USPTO entered into a Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Minority Business Development Agency
    to provide education to the minority businesses as well as the
    directors for the MBDA offices and business centers. The USPTO also
    works closely with the U.S. Department of Interior, specifically, the
    Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA), to help educate Native American artists and craftspeople on
    intellectual property issues as well as intellectual property theft
    from other countries. Starting in fiscal year 2007, the USPTO began to
    operate its USPTO STOP Booth, an information booth, at the
    International Music Products Association (NAMM) bi-annual trade shows
    to wide acclaim by both the NAMM Board and music product manufacturers.

                          ITA--PROMOTING U.S. EXPORTS

        Question. Exports are an important part of Ohio's manufacturing
    economy. As governor of Ohio, I led nine Ohio trade missions abroad,
    which were designed to open markets for Ohio products. I know that the
    U.S. Commercial Service serves as a resource to many small and medium-
    sized companies that want to export.
        Can you describe the Department's strategic plan on how the
    Commercial Service resources will be used to promote U.S. exports given
    the constraints on existing personnel?
        Answer. The U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) is a
    critical part of the International Trade Administration. US&FCS will
    continue to ensure that U.S. companies, particularly small and medium-
    sized businesses, benefit from global trade. Through US&FCS's current
    global network of trade professionals in 109 U.S. locations and in 127
    offices located in 77 countries, US&FCS staff will continue to work
    with U.S. companies, providing counseling and advocacy, market
    research, trade events, and identification of potential international
    buyers or partners. US&FCS will maintain its program focus on three
    priorities: increasing the number of U.S. companies that export;
    helping smaller companies expand to new export markets; and helping
    exporters overcome hurdles in foreign markets.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

                                      NOAA

        Question. Secretary Locke, the President's budget request
    eliminates the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, and proposes a new
    nationwide competitive grants program to recover all endangered and
    threatened marine species. But as you know from your time as Governor
    of the State of Washington, salmon recovery is a complex issue.
        Can you tell me about NOAA's plans moving forward to ensure
    adequate funding for recovery of Pacific Coast salmon?
        Answer. On May 21st, the Administration sent a budget amendment to
    the hill that contains language that allocates $50 million to the
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. In fiscal year 2010, program
    increases are provided to implement the Pacific Salmon Treaty (+$16.5
    million) and develop advanced tools for managing salmon (+$7 million),
    amounting to a total of $159 million in NOAA to support Pacific salmon.
    Also, nearly $170 million was provided in the Recovery Act to restore
    coastal habitat, particularly in locations where there are listed
    species. Areas with Pacific salmon are competing for those grants.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the Mitchell Act hatchery program was
    created in 1938 and funds hatchery activities in the Lower Columbia
    River. As you may be aware, the Hatchery Scientific Review Group
    recently released a report calling for hatchery reform efforts in the
    Columbia Basin. A key part of these reforms would be centered around
    Mitchell Act hatcheries, which have been flat funded for several years.
        What plans do you have to move forward on the much-needed
    modernization and reform of Mitchell Act hatcheries?
        Answer. I am familiar with the important contribution made by the
    Mitchell Act to recreational, commercial, and tribal fisheries in the
    Northwest, as well as to fulfilling expectations under our Pacific
    Salmon Treaty with Canada. It is critical that the hatchery facilities
    supported by the Mitchell Act sustain fisheries in a manner that is
    consistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Hatchery
    Scientific Review Group recently called for measures that would
    accomplish our joint goals of maintaining fisheries while meeting ESA
    objectives.
        NOAA Fisheries is working with the Washington Department of Fish
    and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Yakama
    Indian Nation and the Fish and Wildlife Service (the operators of the
    facilities) to manage funding opportunities in order to implement many
    of these recommendations. More implementation measures are planned for
    the future. The fiscal year 2010 funding request for Mitchell Act
    hatcheries is $ 16.5 million, within which further hatchery reform
    measures will be implemented.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee stands in recess,
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., Thursday, April 23, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Lautenberg, Pryor,
    Shelby, and Alexander.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

    STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, Science of the Senate Appropriations
    Committee will come to order.
        The subcommittee this morning wants to give a very warm and
    cordial welcome to our Attorney General, Eric Holder. This is
    his first appearance before the Senate Appropriations
    Committee, and we welcome him. We want to hear the President's
    priorities, his agenda for essentially rebuilding and
    recapitalizing the Department of Justice.
        The American people rely on the Department of Justice, and
    we are passionate about restoring it to what its original
    mission is. We know that you bring a great deal of experience
    as a career prosecutor, as a judge, and as someone who has been
    dedicated to protecting the American people from all kinds of
    crime.
        As the Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science
    Subcommittee, I want to look to you to be able to carry out the
    mandate. First of all, restoring the honor and integrity of the
    Justice Department. There are so many people who work at the
    Justice Department every day. Not only our gifted and talented
    legal teams, but all those who support them and then those who
    work in the field of Federal law enforcement, as well as those
    who administer those grant programs designed to deal with
    prevention and intervention.
        They need to know that the Department of Justice is free
    from politics and ideology. And whether it has been what has
    happened at the U.S. Attorneys Office, whether it has been the
    politics involved in giving out the juvenile justice grants,
    and, of course, the issues related to torture, we are going to
    hear from you how you want to restore that trust. And then what
    are the resources you need to be able to begin enforcing those
    laws that need to be enforced, as well as those that might have
    been overlooked as we fought other wars, particularly in the
    area of civil rights?
        We are also concerned that in addition to fighting the
    global war against terrorism, we need to continue to protect
    our neighborhoods. We will be reviewing the budget for cops on
    the beat; the Byrne grants to make sure that they have
    resources that they need to fight local crime, and also, again,
    those very important grant programs that make such a difference
    in the lives of people in the local police departments. As you
    know, people interact with Justice at many different levels.
        There are also new threats, particularly in the area of
    mortgage fraud, predatory lending, identity theft, cyber
    crime--all kinds of new, emerging things that were not pressing
    when you worked in Government more than a decade ago. The
    Internet seemed nothing more than an expensive toy for a few,
    and now it is an essential tool for law enforcement. But we now
    find the criminals are as good at using the Net as we are, and
    we don't want them to escape the net of justice.
        There is also the issue of terrorism. During the last
    decade, with America under attack and our desire to protect the
    homeland, our law enforcement agencies have had to assume a new
    role, particularly the FBI. We will want to hear about that.
    And we will also want to hear about the President's plan for
    the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
        I support the President's agenda for closing Guantanamo
    Bay, and at the same time, as a United States Senator, I want
    to make sure that we protect our neighborhoods and communities
    as we look at what is the honorable and right way to deal with
    the prisoners that are there.
        We need to enforce the law. We need to respect
    international law. But we have to make sure that streets and
    neighborhoods are not going to be the repository of Guantanamo
    prisoners. So we are going to be asking questions about the
    President's policies.
        We would like to hear from you today, as you present your
    budget. We know that the President has given us kind of the top
    line on the appropriations. We don't have the kinds of details
    we normally would have for this hearing, but we are pleased at
    the direction that he is going in.
        We are also particularly pleased that he understands the
    role of our Federal law enforcement, not only our FBI, but also
    the Marshals Service, DEA, and ATF. We note the President has
    increased funding in those--the Marshals Service by an increase
    of $198 million, DEA by close to $100 million, et cetera.
        For the cops on the beat, which goes to neighborhood
    initiatives, we know that the President has increased this by
    $300 million. But we are deeply troubled that the Office of
    Justice Programs has been reduced by $594 million just at the
    time when local communities are facing great stress,
    particularly those marvelous prevention programs. So we will go
    into this in more detail.
        But I will save more focused comments for my questions. I
    would like to turn now to Senator Shelby for any comments that
    he might have.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Attorney General Holder, welcome to the committee, and
    thank you for joining us to discuss the Department of Justice
    and its 2010 budget request.
        First, I want to recognize and extend my appreciation and
    support to the men and women of the Department of Justice who
    protect the country from crime and terrorism. We owe them all a
    debt of gratitude.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of
    Justice is $24 billion. This is a $950 million, or 4 percent
    increase over the 2009 request.
        In keeping pace with the last administration, the
    Department continues to be, some people think, satisfied
    playing second fiddle to the Department of Homeland Security--I
    hope that is not true--whether it is drugs, gun tracing,
    explosive, jurisdiction, or the border war. During the last
    administration, the Department of Homeland Security's request
    grew 7 to 10 percent each year, while the Justice Department
    request decreased or remained flat until this year.
        While the overall numbers for the Department appear to have
    improved, there is a disturbing theme throughout the request
    that advocates hugs for criminals, some people think, instead
    of catching and punishing them. I am specifically, Mr. Attorney
    General, referring to the Second Chance Act.
        The DOJ 2010 budget press release sent out by your office
    highlights the Second Chance Act. Now that is not a bad thing,
    but there is no mention of Adam Walsh funding, for example. The
    welfare of terrorists, pedophiles, and career criminals is
    prioritized, some people believe, at the expense of child
    safety, crime victims, and law enforcement. I hope this is not
    the case.
        Once again, this administration, like the previous one, has
    requested such an inadequate level of funding for the Adam
    Walsh enforcement that it essentially ensures the act's
    failure, which is disturbing. In a perfect world flush with
    resources, I would be supportive of funding the Second Chance
    Act, period. But the very idea of taking money from victims and
    law enforcement officers to educate and comfort terrorists,
    pedophiles, and career criminals I think is an abomination.
        Let me say this again. The Department of Justice is
    requesting funds to educate and to mentor terrorists,
    pedophiles, and career criminals while requesting no funds for
    tracking the kinds of people that abducted and sexually
    assaulted Adam Walsh, Elizabeth Smart, Drew Sjodin, Polly
    Klaas, and Jessica Lunsford and others like them.
        How can we look into the eyes of the parents of these
    children and tell them the Department of Justice and the
    administration are prioritizing criminals while being
    overfunding of the Adam Walsh Act?
        Mr. Attorney General, the administration recently announced
    its intention to close the military detention facility at
    Guantanamo Bay, where 241 detainees are still being held. This
    will be a difficult and expensive undertaking for the
    Department.
        The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the
    administration plans to possibly release the detainees into the
    United States. The Director of National Intelligence, Dennis
    Blair, went so far as to suggest that the administration is
    even considering providing these terrorists with taxpayer-
    funded subsidies to establish and supplement their new life in
    America. Gosh, I hope they don't come to my community.
        I look forward to hearing whether this administration
    really intends to release these terrorist-trained detainees
    into our communities and give them public assistance and under
    what circumstances.
        Last, Mr. Attorney General, I would like an explanation of
    the cost and burdens the department will have to undertake to
    begin the closure process. We want to work with you to ensure
    that the personnel under your direction involved in this
    process have the resources necessary to complete their mission
    safely.
        And I do thank you again for appearing before the
    committee.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General

                        STATEMENT OF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.

        Attorney General Holder. Good morning, Chairwoman Mikulski,
    Ranking Member Shelby, Senator Alexander. It is good to see
    you.
        And I guess happy birthday, Senator Shelby. I understand
    you had a birthday yesterday?
        Senator Shelby. Thank you. I did, and I hope I have many
    more. Thank you.
        Attorney General Holder. I am sure you will.
        Senator Mikulski. I didn't know that. You really are a good
    detective.
        Attorney General Holder. The FBI works for me. Due to the
    Presidential transition, the fiscal year 2010 budget request is
    being released in two parts. In February, the administration
    announced the top-line request for each agency, including the
    Department of Justice. Today, the President will transmit the
    fiscal year 2010 budget, which includes $26.7 billion for the
    Department of Justice.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
    highlight certain aspects of the budget and further discuss key
    priorities for the Department of Justice.
        The President promised that from the day that he took
    office; America will have a Justice Department that is truly
    dedicated to exactly that: justice. As I mentioned, the fiscal
    year 2010 budget that will be transmitted today supports this
    vital task by investing a total of $26.7 billion in our
    critical law enforcement mission, including protecting America
    from terrorism, fighting financial and mortgage fraud, getting
    more cops on the beat, reinvigorating civil rights enforcement,
    and providing essential resources for our prisons.
        As I testified during my confirmation hearing earlier this
    year, I will also pursue a very specific set of priorities.
    First, I will work to strengthen the activities of the Federal
    Government to protect the American people from terrorism. I
    will use every available tactic to defeat our adversaries, and
    I will do so within the letter and the spirit of our
    Constitution.
        Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by
    depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting
    tools. America must be a beacon to the world. We will lead by
    strength. We will lead by wisdom, and we will lead by example.
        Second, I will ensure that law enforcement decisions and
    personnel actions in the Justice Department are untainted by
    partisanship.
        Third, I will revive the traditional missions of the
    Department. Without ever relaxing our guard against the fight
    against global terrorism, the Department must also embrace its
    historic mission in fighting crime, protecting civil rights,
    protecting the environment, and ensuring fairness in the
    marketplace.

                       PRESIDENT OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

        The Department's work does not end with those priorities.
    On January 22, President Obama issued three Executive orders
    and a Presidential memorandum that gave significant
    responsibility to the Department. These orders require
    immediate interagency action regarding Guantanamo Bay
    detainees, specifically to: review the appropriate disposition
    of individuals who are currently detained there; to develop
    policies for handling individuals captured or apprehended in
    connection with armed conflicts and terrorist activities; and
    evaluate current interrogation practices and make
    recommendations as is necessary.
        Now while implementing these orders, the Department will
    take necessary precautions to ensure decisions regarding
    Guantanamo Bay detainees account for safety concerns for all
    Americans. Executing these orders will have a significant
    workload and cost impact on the Department, and this budget
    reflects that need.
        Last month, I, along with other U.S. Government officials,
    attended the Mexico-United States arms trafficking conference
    in Mexico. This was my first foreign trip as Attorney General.
    My attendance at this conference reflects my commitment to
    continuing the fight against the drug cartels. The United
    States shares the responsibility to find solutions to this
    problem, and we will join our Mexican counterparts in every
    step of the fight.
        Now, $26.7 billion is a significant amount of money that
    comes with a commensurate amount of responsibility. We will use
    these funds wisely and with transparency. Our internal efforts,
    which range from implementing the Department's new Unified
    Financial Management System to establishing internal controls
    to ensure that proper expenditure of Recovery Act funds, will
    demonstrate our commitment to accountability at the highest
    level.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to
    discuss the Department's priorities and for your support of our
    programs. I appreciate your recognition of the Department's
    mission and the important work that we do.
        I look forward to working in partnership with this
    subcommittee and with Congress as a whole. I will be pleased to
    answer any questions that you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Eric H. Holder, Jr.

        Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and
    Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today to highlight areas of the President's fiscal year 2010
    Budget for the U.S. Department of Justice and further discuss key
    priorities for the Department. I would also like to thank you for your
    support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the fiscal
    year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. I look forward to your continued
    support and appreciate your recognition of the Department's mission and
    the important work that we do.
        The Department is responsible for defending the interests of the
    United States according to the law; ensuring public safety against
    threats both foreign and domestic; seeking just punishment for
    individuals who break the law; assisting our State and local partners;
    and ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all
    Americans. The Department's ability to meet its mission is dependent on
    funding that supports our operations and allows us to enhance our
    efforts in identified areas of need.
        Today the President released the fiscal year 2010 Budget which
    includes $26.7 billion for the Department of Justice. This is a 3.8
    percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. The
    Department's budget includes enhanced funding for: strengthening
    national security and intelligence programs; combating financial fraud;
    hiring additional police officers; enforcing civil rights; securing our
    Nation's borders; and expanding Federal detention and incarceration
    programs. More specifically, the President's fiscal year 2010 Budget
    request:
      --Counters the Threat of Terrorism and Strengthens National
            Security.--The request provides $7.9 billion for the Federal
            Bureau of Investigation (FBI), including $480 million in
            enhancements and $101 million for continued support of overseas
            contingency operations and $88 million for the National
            Security Division (NSD), to address the President's highest
            priority: protecting the American people from terrorist acts.
            Funding supports the detection and disruption of terrorists,
            counterintelligence, cyber security, and other threats against
            our National Security.
      --Provides Funding to Begin to put 50,000 More Cops on the Street.--
            The request expands the COPS Hiring Grants, and includes
            funding to begin hiring 50,000 additional police officers.
            Supporting the hiring of police officers nationwide will help
            States and communities prevent the growth of crime during the
            economic downturn.
      --Combats Financial Fraud.--The request includes resources for
            additional FBI agents to investigate mortgage fraud and white
            collar crime and for additional Federal prosecutors, civil
            litigators and bankruptcy attorneys to protect investors, the
            market, the Federal Government's investment of resources in the
            financial crisis, and the American public.
      --Reinvigorates Federal Civil Rights Enforcement.--The request
            provides a total of $145 million for the Civil Rights Division
            to strengthen civil rights enforcement against racial, ethnic,
            sexual preference, religious, gender, and other forms of
            discrimination.
      --Strengthens Immigration Enforcement and Border Security.--The
            request supports resources for a comprehensive approach to
            enforcement along our borders that combines law enforcement and
            prosecutorial efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, and
            prosecute illegal immigrants and other criminals. This
            initiative also enhances the Department's ability to track
            fugitives from justice, combat gunrunners and shut down illegal
            drug traffickers.
      --Supports Federal Detention and Incarceration Programs.--The request
            provides $6.1 billion for the Bureau of Prisons and $1.4
            billion for the Office of the Detention Trustee to ensure that
            sentenced criminals and detainees are housed in facilities that
            are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure.
      --Expands Prisoner Reentry Programs.--The request includes $114
            million for prisoner reentry programs, including an additional
            $75 million for the Office of Justice Programs to expand grant
            programs authorized by the Second Chance Act that provide
            counseling, job training, drug treatment, and other
            transitional assistance to former prisoners.
        As I testified during my confirmation hearing earlier this year, I
    will pursue a very specific set of goals:
        First, I will work to strengthen the activities of the Federal
    Government that protect the American people from terrorism. I will use
    every available tactic to defeat our adversaries, and I will do so
    within the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Adherence to the rule
    of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of
    their prime recruiting tools. America must be a beacon to the world. We
    will lead by strength, we will lead by wisdom, and we will lead by
    example.
        Second, I will work to restore the credibility of a Department
    badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference. Law
    enforcement decisions and personnel actions must be untainted by
    partisanship. Under my stewardship, the Department of Justice will
    serve justice, not the fleeting interests of any political party.
        Third, I will reinvigorate the traditional missions of the
    Department. Without ever relaxing our guard in the fight against global
    terrorism, the Department must also embrace its historic role in
    fighting crime, protecting civil rights, preserving the environment,
    and ensuring fairness in the market place.
        In addressing these priorities over the next several years, I look
    to the continued support of this subcommittee and Congress, as a whole,
    to ensure a systematic approach is implemented to target each one of
    the priorities outlined.

            NATIONAL SECURITY: COUNTER-TERRORISM EFFORTS SINCE 9/11

        Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the highest priority of
    the Department has been to protect America against acts of terrorism.
    Despite repeated and sustained efforts by terrorists, there has not
    been another attack on American soil. The Department has improved
    significantly its ability to identify, penetrate, and dismantle
    terrorist plots as a result of a series of structural reforms, the
    development of new intelligence and law enforcement tools, and a new
    mindset that values information sharing, communication and prevention.
    Working with its Federal, State, and local partners, as well as
    international counterparts, the Department has tirelessly worked to
    safeguard America.
        The FBI has transformed its operations to better detect and
    dismantle terrorist enterprises--part of the FBI's larger emphasis on
    threat-driven intelligence. As part of this strategic shift, the FBI
    has overhauled its counterterrorism operations, expanded intelligence
    capabilities, modernized business practices and technology, and
    improved coordination with its partners.
        All of the Department's law enforcement components, especially
    those involved in national security efforts need reliable wireless
    communication capabilities. The ability of law enforcement to
    adequately communicate is vital in emergency situations and for day-to-
    day operations. Inadequate radio systems put our agents' lives, as well
    as those of the public, at risk. On average, the current Department
    radio systems are between 15 and 20 years old. The Integrated Wireless
    Network (IWN) Program is an interagency effort to provide secure,
    interoperable wireless communications that support the missions of the
    Federal agencies involved in this initiative. IWN will provide a range
    of secure and reliable wireless communications services, including
    voice, data and multimedia, to support Federal law enforcement,
    homeland security, and first responder operations. IWN will implement
    solutions to provide Federal agency interoperability with appropriate
    links to State, local and tribal public safety and homeland security
    entities. IWN will be deployed incrementally across the country by
    2014.

                           SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE

        Several weeks ago, this subcommittee held hearings with Special
    Agents in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and then
    with Acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart. These hearings provided
    you critical information on the Department's efforts to address this
    issue. I will not attempt to summarize what took place during the
    previous hearings regarding this matter, but I will highlight some of
    the work the Department has engaged in recently to address southwest
    border violence.
        Illegal immigration and border security continue to be paramount
    concerns for the United States and the Department. The Southwest Border
    in particular is a vulnerable area for illegal immigration, drug
    trafficking, and the smuggling of illegal firearms. Implementing a
    comprehensive strategy involves collaboration and coordination at
    various levels of the government. Late last month, the Department
    announced increased efforts to be used in the fight against Mexican
    Drug Cartels. The Department, along with the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS) and the Department of State, will invest $700 million
    this year to enhance Mexican law enforcement and judicial capacity and
    work closely to coordinate efforts against the cartels through the
    Merida Initiative. The Department's coordination will include the FBI,
    DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and the Criminal Division, who
    will work to investigate and prosecute cartel members for their illegal
    activities in the United States and with law enforcement colleagues to
    disrupt the illegal flow of weapons and bulk cash to Mexico.
        The Mexican Cartel Strategy will allow the Department to commit 100
    ATF personnel to the Southwest Border to supplement our ongoing Project
    Gunrunner, DEA will add 16 new positions on the border, as well as
    newly reconstituted Mobile Enforcement Teams, and the FBI is creating a
    new intelligence group that will focus on kidnapping and extortion. DHS
    is making similar commitments regarding southwest border resources. In
    addition, I have met with Secretary Napolitano to discuss increased
    coordination on various matters between the Department of Justice and
    DHS.
        The Mexican Cartel Strategy is being led by Deputy Attorney General
    David Ogden. This strategy uses Federal prosecutor-led task forces that
    bring together Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies to
    identify, disrupt and dismantle the Mexican drug cartels through
    investigation, prosecution, and extradition of their key leaders and
    facilitators, and seizure and forfeiture of their assets. The
    Department is increasing its focus on investigations and prosecutions
    of the southbound smuggling of guns and cash that fuel the violence and
    corruption and attacking the cartels in Mexico itself, in partnership
    with the Mexican Attorney General's Office and the Secretariat of
    Public Security.
        Earlier this month I, along with other U.S. government officials,
    attended the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference in
    Cuernavaca, Mexico. This was my first foreign trip as Attorney General.
    My attendance at this conference reflects my commitment to continuing
    this fight against the drug cartels. The United States shares the
    responsibility to find solutions to this problem and we will join our
    Mexican counterparts in every step of this fight.

       IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO CLOSE GUANTANAMO

        On January 22, President Obama issued three Executive Orders and a
    Presidential Memorandum that gave significant responsibility to the
    Department. These Orders, which are clearly important Presidential
    initiatives, require immediate interagency action to:
      --review and effect the appropriate disposition of individuals
            currently detained by the Department of Defense at the
            Guantanamo Bay Naval Base;
      --develop policies for the detention, trial transfer, release, or
            other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in
            connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism
            operations;
      --study and evaluate current interrogation practices and techniques
            and, if warranted, recommend additional or different guidance;
      --and review the detention of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri.
        The Department has begun implementing these Orders and the
    Memorandum. I have appointed an Executive Director to lead the Task
    Force on Review of Guantanamo Bay Detainees. I have also named two
    officials to lead the Task Force Reviews on Interrogation and Detention
    Policy.
        The Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force is responsible for
    assembling and examining relevant information and making
    recommendations regarding the proper disposition of each individual
    currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Task Force will consider
    whether it is possible to transfer or release detained individuals
    consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of
    the United States; evaluate whether the government should seek to
    prosecute detained individuals for crimes they may have committed; and,
    if none of those options are possible, the Task Force will recommend
    other lawful means for disposition of the detained individuals.
        The Special Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies is
    charged with conducting a review to determine whether the Army Field
    Manual interrogation guidelines, when employed by departments or
    agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of
    acquiring the intelligence to protect the Nation, and whether different
    or additional interrogation guidance is necessary. This task force is
    also responsible for examining the transfer of individuals to other
    nations to ensure that such practices comply with all domestic and
    international legal obligations and are sufficient to ensure that such
    individuals do not face torture or inhumane treatment.
        The Special Task Force on Detention Policy is charged with
    conducting a review of the lawful options available to the Federal
    Government for the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release or
    other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection
    with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.
        The Presidential Orders and the Memorandum require me to coordinate
    or co-chair each of these interagency activities. These task forces
    also involve other Departments and agencies, including the Secretaries
    of Defense, State, Homeland Security, the Director of National
    Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other officials.
        While implementing these Orders the Department will take necessary
    precautions to ensure decisions regarding Guantanamo detainees account
    for safety concerns of all Americans. Executing these orders will have
    a significant workload and cost impact on the Department and this
    budget reflects that need.

      FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERSHIPS TARGETING FORECLOSURE SCAMS AND LOAN
                               MODIFICATION FRAUD

        As many Americans face the adverse affects of a devastating economy
    and an unstable housing market, the administration announced a new
    coordinated effort across Federal and State government and the private
    sector to target mortgage loan modification fraud and foreclosure
    rescue scams. These fraudulent activities threaten to hurt American
    homeowners and prevent them from getting the help they need during
    these challenging times. The new effort aligns responses from Federal
    law enforcement agencies, State investigators and prosecutors, civil
    enforcement authorities, and the private sector to protect homeowners
    seeking assistance under the administration's Making Home Affordable
    Program from criminals looking to perpetrate predatory schemes.
        The Department, in partnership with the U.S. Department of
    Treasury, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the
    Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Attorney General of Illinois,
    will coordinate information and resources across agencies to maximize
    targeting and efficiency in fraud investigations, alert financial
    institutions to emerging schemes and step up enforcement actions. As
    part of this multi-agency effort, the Department has outlined ways to
    crack down on mortgage fraud schemes. The FBI is investigating more
    than 2,100 mortgage fraud cases. This number is up almost 400 percent
    from 5 years ago. The Bureau has more than doubled the number of agents
    investigating mortgage scams, created a National Mortgage Fraud Team at
    Headquarters, and is working hand-in-hand with other partnering
    agencies.
        In addition to focusing on fraudulent scams, I am committed to
    ensuring that homeowners who may be having difficulty making their
    mortgage payments do not experience discrimination and can benefit in
    equal measure from legitimate loan modification programs and other
    Federal programs to provide mortgage assistance and stabilize home
    prices. Lending discrimination prevents those who are discriminated
    against from enjoying the benefits of access to credit, including
    reasonable mortgage payments, so they can stay in their homes and
    provide much needed stability for their neighborhoods.
        Discrimination in lending on the basis of race, national origin, or
    other prohibited factors is destructive, morally repugnant, and against
    the law. We will use the full range of our enforcement authority to
    investigate and prosecute this type of unacceptable lending
    discrimination.

                      UNIFIED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        Lastly, the Department continues to address ways to improve work
    efficiency and productivity. One important and complex effort in the
    Department's management arena is the implementation of the Unified
    Financial Management System (UFMS). Once fully implemented, UFMS will
    result in more accurate, timely and useful financial information that
    can better support management decisions and actions. UFMS will also
    enhance the Department's accountability, accuracy, and transparency as
    it relates to financial performance, internal controls, and standard
    business practices. Significant achievements and progress have been
    made on UFMS, and details of our future plans are provided in our
    Congressional request.
        UFMS is a critical element in the long-term health of the
    Department's financial operations and we look forward to working with
    the subcommittee as we move forward with UFMS implementation.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss my
    priorities for the Department.
        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 will
    support me in these worthy investments. 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 here today. I am pleased to
    answer any questions you might have.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, first, Mr. Attorney General, we
    want to salute you on these priorities and believe that in your
    official statement, too, where you say you want to counter the
    threat of terrorism and strengthen national security; make sure
    we are providing cops on the beat, 50,000 of them; strengthen
    the Southwest border initiatives, both dealing with the Mexican
    cartels as well as others; and combating financial fraud--we
    believe these are very important priorities.
        Let me get, though, right to what is a headline topic,
    which is the Guantanamo Bay closing. We on the committee
    attended this time last week a hearing on the supplemental, and
    we heard the outstanding testimony of Secretaries Gates and
    Clinton, where we listened to the Departments of Defense and
    State. But a significant part of what needs to happen will be
    at Justice. So we are going to ask a little bit about the
    supplemental as well as this, what is in the fiscal year 2010
    budget request.
        As we understand for Guantanamo, the Justice Department is
    asking for $30 million to begin the closing of Guantanamo Bay
    and then has a placeholder for fiscal 2010 for additional funds
    related to the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Could you tell me--I
    mean, you have got $30 million here, and what it says is you
    have got three task forces. That just strikes the committee as
    an awful lot of money to pay for bureaucracy, three task
    forces.
        We do not minimize the role of these task forces, which are
    detention review, interrogation policy, et cetera. But what
    would this $30 million do, and is this laying the groundwork
    for the dumping of terrorists into State and Federal prisons?

                            REVIEW OF DETAINEE CASES

        Attorney General Holder. Well, Madam Chairwoman, these are,
    as you indicated, not ordinary task forces. We were asked to
    set them up with short deadlines. There are, obviously, as you
    indicated, extraordinary consequences to the work that these
    task forces will do for our country and for the world, for that
    matter.
        We had to take extraordinary measures to stand up these
    full-fledged classified task forces to put in place these
    classified legal review structures utilizing dozens of
    attorneys and subject matter experts from around the country.
    Now, to be more specific, we stood up a temporary classified
    organization at the top secret SCI level.
        There are tens of thousands of pages of classified
    documents that have to be reviewed, thousands more that have to
    be translated. There are now over 80 attorneys, including
    several dozen who are detailed to Washington from our field
    offices, who are involved in this effort. We have paralegals
    with classified clearances that are needed and are involved in
    the effort.
        We have travel and lodging for those staff that is included
    in this money. And we are also having to backfill the positions
    in the field so that our traditional law enforcement work
    doesn't suffer as a result of the work the task forces have to
    do.
        Now all of this work has to be done in a secure, classified
    environment, using secure networks and classified capable
    computers, scanning devices, phones, and copiers. And as you
    know from your Intelligence Committee work, this is material
    and equipment that is very expensive. We also have secure
    electronic document handling capabilities that we need. We have
    to outfit these task forces with, in essence, the secure
    equipment that is required for the work that they are doing.
        We have also entered into an automated litigation support
    arrangement to support the massive document review effort that
    the task forces will have to do.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, what you are saying
    is that though it sounds like 241 prisoners, which is not a
    large number--I mean, in Maryland I have got 600 prisoners
    awaiting Federal trial. But the highly sensitive nature of who
    these prisoners are requires that everything occur in highly
    classified situations because of the nature of the information
    involved. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. So it is just not an inventory about a
    person and what did he do and how bad he is and what we should
    do. So the cost and expense, particularly with them being off
    the coast of Cuba and our coast, require a great deal of
    expenditure just to maintain the security and the
    classification of this and that we do it in an appropriate way.
    Is that correct?
        Attorney General Holder. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. Now when will these task forces be done?
        Attorney General Holder. The task force that is making the
    individualized determinations on the detainees is supposed to
    be done by January of next year. The other two task forces are
    supposed to be finished by July of this year.
        Senator Mikulski. When would you anticipate that this be
    done and that prisoners would begin to leave Guantanamo to
    places yet to be determined?
        Attorney General Holder. I am not sure. We are still in the
    process of making those individualized determinations, and we
    haven't come to a conclusion yet as to when we will be in a
    position to actually ask specific countries if they would take
    specific detainees. We are doing this on a rolling basis, and
    we have not gotten to that point yet.
        I would expect in the next few months, though, that we
    would probably start that process.
        Senator Mikulski. But Mr. Attorney General, are you saying
    that there is no immediate or imminent release of prisoners who
    would be placed on the shores of the United States of America?
        Attorney General Holder. No. As I said, we are still in the
    process of making individualized determinations as to where
    these people should go. And paramount in our concern is the
    safety of the American people. We are not going to put at risk
    the safety of the people of this country in any determination
    we make with regard to the disposition of any of these
    individuals.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I am glad to hear that safety of
    our people is the number one concern. Could you tell us what
    would be the general policy and consultation that you would
    have? Because I think the fear that many have, whether they are
    Governors or those of us who are elected national officials, is
    that we don't wake up one day and we hear that there are 100
    people coming, and they are just going to be--I don't mean
    dropped off. We would be very concerned about not proper
    consultation. Do you anticipate them going to Federal
    facilities? What is your process?
        We understand that the President and you can't go to
    another country and say, ``Please, take some of these
    prisoners,'' unless we, ourselves, also evaluate our
    responsibility. But what would be your timetable? What is your
    role and the President's in consultation so that we are aware
    of this? These are not just any old prisoners.

                            DISPOSITION OF DETAINEES

        Attorney General Holder. Yes. With regard to the
    disposition of all of these detainees, we will be consulting.
    And that is, in fact, what I was in Europe doing last week,
    talking to our allies about the possibility of making transfers
    to some of those countries. We are talking to our allies in the
    Middle East as well for the disposition of possible transfer.
        Senator Mikulski. But who are you going to talk to in the
    United States?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, if the decision is made to
    have people come to the United States. And I say ``if.'' That
    determination has not been made yet. We would obviously be
    consulting with State and local officials, and Federal
    officials to do that in the way that we would want and make
    sure, as you say, that surprises did not occur.
        But I really want to emphasize that determinations have not
    been made yet with regard to any individuals about where any
    specific people are going.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, let me tell you what I worry about.
    First of all, of course, the safety of our communities. One of
    the things that happened to me during the Bush administration
    was when I woke up to a headline coming from the Department of
    Justice and the Bureau of Prisons that they were going to put a
    prison, a 1,700-person detention facility, in Maryland. And
    they chose two African-American communities as their site, and
    nobody had talked to me. No one had talked to Governor Ehrlich,
    a Republican Governor.
        And all of a sudden, we were facing this, and it was going
    to hold everything from Federal prisoners awaiting trial to
    potentially holding terrorists. I launched like Sally Ride
    going into orbit about this, as did also Governor Ehrlich.
        It is not that we don't understand Federal responsibility,
    but wow. And also, it was going to be a privately operated
    prison by a Mississippi company. So we can't have that.
        Can I have your assurances that nothing would be done in
    States and local communities without consultation with us and
    also consultation with Governors?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, Madam Chairwoman, I give you
    that promise with regard to all that the Justice Department and
    all of the components that we have will do. We want to have a
    good relationship with this committee, and with other Members
    of Congress. We want to work in partnership, and I truly mean
    that--in partnership--so that we establish priorities to carry
    out the work that we think is important, but also what Members
    of Congress, and this committee think is important. We are
    looking to work together to solve the common problems that we
    all face.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you.
        I know we are going to have a lot to talk about, but I
    thank you for your candor. What you are saying is that right
    now you are doing an inventory of who is there at Guantanomo
    Bay and what is the right way to dispose of them, as well as
    also doing a real evaluation about what are the best
    interrogation policies that get the best information under the
    rule of law. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Holder. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Attorney General Holder, about more than a month ago, my
    colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, who is now the
    ranking or top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that you
    will deal with a lot, he wrote you a letter dated April 2
    regarding, among other things, the legal authority of the
    United States of America through the Justice Department, asking
    whether the Federal Government has the current legal authority
    to admit any prisoner held at the military detention facility
    in Guantanamo Bay who participated in terrorist-related
    activities into the United States. He sent a follow-up letter
    on May 4 to you.
        My question to you, in view of the statutes, as you are
    very familiar with, and the Court of Appeals for the District
    of Columbia decision, does the U.S. Government have the
    authority to admit these terrorists into the United States if
    you move them from Guantanamo Bay into some of our communities?
    And if you think they do, could you provide for the committee a
    written response as to the authority of that?
        First, do you think you have the authority to do that?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I think----
        Senator Shelby. To bring terrorists into the communities?

                      DETERMINATIONS TO TRANSFER DETAINEES

        Attorney General Holder. Well, as I indicated in my opening
    statement, the purpose of this review is to make individualized
    determinations as to what should happen to the detainees, and
    the paramount consideration that we will have is the safety of
    the American people. Transfer or release of these detainees
    will only happen in those instances where we are convinced that
    that can be done in a way that the communities that receive
    them--overseas, with our allies--will not have any impact on
    the safety of the place that is receiving them.
        Senator Shelby. Excuse me a minute. Excuse me.
        Are you saying that, one, you believe you have the legal
    authority to bring terrorists into this country and disperse
    them around the country in the communities? Do you believe you
    have that?
        Attorney General Holder. The underlying premise I don't
    agree with. We don't have any plans to release terrorists.
        Senator Shelby. No, I asked if you have the authority
    first. Do you have the authority under the law to do this? To
    bring terrorists into this country and bring them into the
    community?
        Attorney General Holder. And what I am saying is that with
    regard to those who you would describe as terrorists, we would
    not bring them into this country and release them. Anybody who
    we consider to be a terrorist, as I think you are using the
    word.
        Senator Shelby. A terrorist or a former terrorist or
    whatever, or terrorist trained, all of that.
        Attorney General Holder. And again, as I said, with regard
    to the release decisions that we will make, we will look at
    these cases on an individualized basis and make determinations
    as to where they can appropriately be placed.
        Senator Shelby. Isn't that a dicey thing to do? Do you know
    of any community in the United States of America that would
    welcome terrorists, former terrorists, would-be terrorists,
    people trained as terrorists that have been incarcerated at
    Guantanamo Bay?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, again, it will not be the
    intention of this task force review, the intention of this
    administration or this Attorney General to place anybody in any
    part of this world who is a risk to the community, to the
    country that is receiving these individuals.
        You have to understand that we are going to be making
    decisions with regard to these people. Some are going to be
    released. Some are going to be tried. Some will be detained on
    a fairly extended basis. And so, those who will be released are
    those who we think can be released and be released on a safe
    basis.
        Senator Shelby. Of course, as the Attorney General, you are
    familiar with a number of terrorists that have been released to
    their various countries and have wound up as leaders in
    terrorist activities, killing our soldiers, our allies, and
    everything else. You are aware of what the track record is
    there, where people have been released, and most of them have
    come back as some of the top terrorists of the world?
        Attorney General Holder. I am not sure if I would say
    ``most.'' I know that with regard to the Saudi program, for
    instance, that re-education program that they have used, about
    10 percent of those apparently have returned to the
    battlefield, a not insignificant number. But we will do all
    that we can in those release determinations that we make to
    ensure that those people who we think will pose a danger if
    released, in fact, do not get released.
        Senator Shelby. Could you say here today that the top
    priority of your office as the Attorney General of the United
    States would be to protect the American people from terrorist
    activity at any cost?
        Attorney General Holder. I spend every waking moment of my
    life now thinking about how I can ensure the safety of the
    American people. The responsibilities of this job are enormous,
    and they have become more enormous since September 11.
        In talking to my predecessors, Attorneys General Ashcroft,
    Gonzalez, and Mukasey, I understand in a way that I did not
    before I had this job the heavy responsibility that being
    Attorney General now is.
        Senator Shelby. If I could shift a little bit to the
    explosives trafficking in Mexico that you alluded to earlier?
    In April, the Associated Press reported that Mexico has seized
    more than 2,702 grenades since the start of the new president's
    term in December 2006. There has been a lot of focusing from
    your office, too, on the trafficking of firearms to Mexico and
    tracing the origins of firearms recovered at crime scenes.
        But we have heard little in regard to the serious threat
    from explosives trafficking. Does the Department of Justice
    have adequate resources in Mexico in identifying these
    recovered explosives, one? Does the Department of Justice have
    adequate resources at the U.S. Bomb Data Center to trace the
    enormous increase in grenades recovered in Mexico and analyze
    the data from these traces?
        And what efforts, Mr. Attorney General, has the Department
    of Justice taken to provide explosive training to Mexican
    military and law enforcement authorities? And I guess, last,
    how can we help you in this regard in the funding of these
    activities that I think are very important?

                  ARMS TRAFFICKING ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

        Attorney General Holder. We think we have been helpful to
    our Mexican counterparts by moving resources to the Southwest
    border--ATF agents, DEA agents, FBI agents--as well as
    increasing our presence within Mexico to deal with the arms
    trafficking that is going on there and also with the issue that
    you raised regarding explosive devices that are found there.
        We have in our budget additional resource requests in that
    regard. I think the facility that is located in Alabama can be
    a critical part in helping our Mexican counterparts in focusing
    there. More generally, the facility will be critical in the
    work that the Justice Department should have the responsibility
    for dealing with explosives and the crime that can be committed
    using explosive devices.
        Senator Shelby. I agree.
        Attorney General Holder. That is a very, very important----
        Senator Shelby. I am glad to hear that because there is a
    tug-of-war for appropriations going on up here, wittingly or
    unwittingly, between the Department of Homeland Security and
    the Justice Department. But I believe that a lot of this
    responsibility lies with the Justice Department.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Lautenberg, ordinarily we would be alternating
    party. But I am taking people in their order of arrival. I am
    going to turn to Senator Alexander now.
        Senator Alexander? And then we will come right over to you,
    Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Attorney General, welcome. Thank you for being here.
        Attorney General Holder. Good morning.
        Senator Alexander. And thank you for your service.
        I have a few questions about the interrogation of enemy
    combatants. I thought President Obama's first instinct was a
    good one when he said that we should look forward. But
    apparently, not everyone agrees with that. I notice a Member of
    the House of Representatives yesterday said that she wanted a
    full top-to-bottom criminal investigation.
        So these are my questions. Number one, what directions or
    guidance have you received from the President or his
    representatives or anyone at the White House concerning an
    investigation of the interrogation of enemy combatants?

                        INVESTIGATION OF INTERROGATIONS

        Attorney General Holder. Well, as we have indicated, for
    those people who were involved in the interrogation and who
    relied upon, in good faith, and adhered to the memoranda
    created by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, it
    is our intention not to prosecute and not to investigate those
    people.
        I have also indicated that we will follow the law and the
    facts and let that take us wherever it may. I think a good
    prosecutor can only say that. But so I think those are the
    general ways in which we view this issue.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        Well, my second question would be should you follow these
    facts and continue in an investigation, if you are
    investigating lawyers at the Department of Justice who wrote
    legal opinions authorizing certain interrogations, wouldn't it
    also be appropriate to investigate the CIA employees or
    contractors or other people from intelligence agencies who
    asked or created the interrogation techniques or officials in
    the Bush administration who approved them?
        Or what about Members of Congress who were informed of them
    or knew about them or approved them or encouraged them?
    Wouldn't they also be appropriate parts of such an
    investigation?

                 OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY INQUIRY

        Attorney General Holder. Well, there is, as has been
    publicly reported, an OPR inquiry into the work of the
    attorneys who prepared those OLC memoranda. I have not reviewed
    it. It is not in final form yet. I have not reviewed that
    report.
        I will look at that report and make a determination as to
    what I want to do with the recommendations. It deals, I
    suspect, not only with the attorneys, but the people that they
    interacted with. So I think we will gain some insights by
    reviewing that report.
        Our desire is not to do anything that would be perceived as
    political, as partisan. We do want to look forward to the
    extent that we can do that. But as I said, my responsibility as
    Attorney General is to enforce the laws of this Nation. And to
    the extent that we see violations of those laws, we will take
    the appropriate action.
        Senator Alexander. So you would follow, the investigation
    could follow to the people who asked for the--I mean, if you
    are going to investigate the lawyers whose opinion was asked
    about whether this is legal or not, I would assume you could
    also go to the people who created the techniques, the officials
    who approved them, and the Members of Congress who knew about
    them and may have encouraged them?
        Attorney General Holder. Hypothetically, that might be
    true. I don't know. What I want to do is look at, in a very
    concrete way, what that OPR report says and get a better sense
    from that report what it says about the interaction of those
    lawyers with people in the administration and see from there
    whether a further action is warranted.
        Senator Alexander. My last question is once we begin this
    process, the question is where is the line drawn? According to
    former intelligence officials, renditions--and by
    ``renditions,'' we mean moving captured people from our country
    to another country where they might be interrogated or even
    worse--those renditions were used by the Clinton
    administration, beginning in the mid 1990s to investigate and
    disrupt Al-Qaeda.
        That is the testimony before Congress from Michael Scheuer.
    He said it began in late summer of 1995. ``I authored it. I ran
    it. I managed it against Al-Qaeda leaders.''
        The Washington Post says that the former Director of the
    Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet said there were about
    70 renditions carried out before September 11, 2001, most of
    them during the Clinton years.
        Mr. Attorney General, you were the Deputy Attorney General
    from 1997 to 2001. Did you know about these renditions? Did you
    or anyone else at the Department of Justice approve them? What
    precautions were taken to ensure these renditions or any
    interrogations of such detainees on, by, or behalf of the
    United States Government complied with the law?

                        TREATMENT OF TERRORISM SUSPECTS

        Attorney General Holder. I think the concern that we have
    with renditions is renditions to countries that would not treat
    suspects in a way that is consistent with the treaties that we
    have signed. If there is a rendition taking a person to a place
    where the possibility is that person might be tortured, that is
    the kind of rendition I think that is inappropriate.
        Now, from my memory of my time in the Clinton
    administration, I don't believe that we had renditions where
    people were taken to places where we had any reasonable belief
    that they were going to be tortured. And that would be the
    concern that I would have.
        I wouldn't want to restrict the ability of our Government
    to use all the techniques that we can to keep the American
    people safe. But in using those tools, we have to do so in a
    way that is consistent with our treaty obligations and our
    values as a Nation.
        Senator Alexander. But I think you can see the line of my
    inquiry, which is that if we are going to ask lawyers who were
    asked to give legal opinions, we are going to investigate them.
    Jeopardize their career, second-guess them, and look back. Then
    where does that stop?
        I mean, do we not also have to look at the people who asked
    for those techniques, at people who approved those techniques,
    at Members of Congress who knew about and encouraged the
    techniques perhaps? Or in your case, in the Clinton
    administration, we don't know what the interrogations were
    then. Perhaps you do. And the question would be whether you
    approved them?
        I prefer President Obama's approach. I think it is time to
    look forward, and I hope he sticks to that point of view.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.

                             PROSECUTOR DISCRETION

        Attorney General Holder. Well, I will note that the OPR
    inquiry was begun in the prior administration and also will
    note that I am a prosecutor. I have been a career prosecutor
    and, I hope, a good one.
        And a good prosecutor uses the discretion that he or she
    has in an appropriate way and has the ability to know how far
    an inquiry needs to go to satisfy the obligations that
    prosecutor has without needlessly dragging into an
    investigation at great expense, both personal and professional,
    people who should not be there.
        And that would be the kind of judgment that I hope I would
    bring to making the determinations that you expressed concern
    about.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And welcome, Mr. Attorney General. We have had the
    opportunity to work together in the past.
        As a matter of fact, nearly 10 years ago, the aftermath of
    the slaughter at Columbine--13 young people killed, 26 wounded.
    We worked to close the gun show loophole. It passed the Senate
    51-50. Vice President Gore breaking the tie. And at the time,
    you urged the House to follow the Senate's lead to close this
    loophole.
        It is 10 years later. The loophole still exists. Do you
    think it is time for Congress to try again to get this sensible
    legislation in place?

                                  GUN VIOLENCE

        Attorney General Holder. Well, I think we have got to use
    our creativity. We have got to use the tools that we already
    have. We have to use the budget that we have proposed to come
    up with ways in which we arm our State and local partners with
    the tools that are necessary to combat the gun violence that I
    think still plagues our country.
        There are a variety of things that I think that we can do,
    and we want to work with this committee and other Members of
    Congress, listen to our State and local partners and try to
    determine what is it that we can do to help them with regard to
    reducing the gun violence that they still confront.
        So I think, as I said, there are a variety of things that
    we can do, and we will look at all of those possibilities and
    then, I think, make determinations on the basis of the
    interaction we have with our partners, the interaction that we
    will have in the executive branch, the consultations we will
    have with Members of Congress to decide exactly which tools are
    going to be the ones that will be the most effective.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but doesn't it offend the
    sensibilities to know that guns can be bought at gun shows
    where your name isn't asked, no Social Security number is
    asked, no picture is taken, no reason for the gun purchase. Is
    it sporting? Is it hunting? None of that.
        And here, like again the Columbine massacre, a young woman
    bought these guns without question, gave them to the two
    fellows who killed all their friends. Doesn't it strike you as
    kind of an anomaly in our pursuit of law and justice,
    protecting our citizens, that this is kind of a foolish way to
    turn our back on these things? Which is what happens, Mr.
    Holder.
        I was traveling out West in a State where gun ownership is
    a matter of pride to lots of people. But the place was jammed,
    and there were unlicensed gun dealers selling weapons without
    asking questions.
        When I asked the question about sensibilities, I don't know
    whether that ever gets us to the end of line, but it sure
    sticks out like a flaw in our system as far as I am concerned.
    And I hope that you will be able to pursue this aggressively.
        The Recovery Act provides $10 million for the
    administration's Southwest border initiative, focused on
    reducing gun trade that fuels so much of the violence in
    Mexico. Can we be assured that the DOJ's efforts to stop the
    flow of guns to Mexico will not interfere with resources that
    are designed to stop domestic gun trafficking within our
    country?
        Attorney General Holder. That is actually a very legitimate
    concern, Senator. We are going to help our Mexican counterparts
    with the issues, the problems that they confront. We have drugs
    flowing from Mexico into this country, a lot of guns flowing
    from this country into Mexico.
        And the resources that we are moving to the Southwest
    border, we are doing on a temporary basis to try to help our
    Mexican counterparts with regard to their efforts and being
    mindful of the fact that as we move those resources to the
    Southwest border, that we are not doing anything that would
    weaken our efforts in other parts of the country.
        So we are trying to do it in a way that is sensitive to the
    needs of the places in which these agents and other personnel
    come from so that we can be helpful to our Mexican counterparts
    without weakening the efforts that we are making there.
        But I also think there is a collateral impact in helping
    our Mexican counterparts. To the extent that we stop the flow
    of arms into Mexico, we will necessarily confront, I suspect,
    people who are also illegally trafficking in guns in this
    country. And so, I think there is a collateral impact, a
    positive impact in helping our Mexican counterparts.
        But I think you are right to raise that concern, and I
    think it is one that we are being sensitive to.
        Senator Lautenberg. You and I had the opportunity to work
    together some years ago on the issue of racial profiling. It
    was unfortunately highlighted in our State of New Jersey, but
    across the country, we saw incidents of that nature. Now new
    leadership--how is DOJ addressing this continuing problem?

                                RACIAL PROFILING

        Attorney General Holder. Well, that is an issue that we
    focused on in the Clinton administration. It is something that
    will be a priority for this administration as well.
        Profiling is simply not good law enforcement. If you devote
    the limited resources that we have in law enforcement on the
    basis of profiling, on the basis of nontraditional techniques--
    we have a good basis for predicates--you will focus on
    somebody, and the person who, in fact, you ought to be
    concerned about slips right on by.
        So I think we have learned a lot from the efforts that we
    did in the 1990s working with you and with others, and our hope
    would be to replicate those efforts. That is still something
    that is a priority for us. It has a negative impact also on the
    communities in which that is practiced and tends to breed
    disrespect for law enforcement and for the criminal justice
    system. And we have to avoid that.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks. The anomaly in New Jersey that
    took place was when our attorney general-to-be was stopped at a
    roadside rest place and questioned and so forth, and his--the
    only thing they could accuse him of was ``driving while
    black.'' And that is what caused that stop.
        The last question, Mr. Holder, in the last administration,
    the COPS program was nearly decimated with serious cuts in
    funding. The Recovery Act contains $1 billion for the COPS
    program, which I think is a great start.
        How do we make up for the deficit that occurred in having
    people trained and available as a result of the neglect of this
    program?

                                  COPS PROGRAM

        Attorney General Holder. I think the billion dollars that
    the Recovery Act provides will give us a leg up on the efforts
    that we have to use to reinvigorate the COPS program. We have
    about $300 million in the budget for next year, and I think we
    have to keep that effort up.
        Our aim is to put 50,000 new police officers on the street.
    I think that what we have done in this first year is
    significant, but we must continue those efforts on a year-by-
    year basis. I think we have to see a lot of what we are doing
    this year as really downpayments on efforts to revitalize
    programs that I think we should focus on and revitalize efforts
    that perhaps have been neglected in the recent past.
        Senator Lautenberg. And I close, Madam Chairman, with
    congratulations to the Attorney General for filling the
    positions that he has with highly capable people and for the
    zeal and the vigor with which you are pursuing your
    responsibility. And we thank you for that.
        Attorney General Holder. I look forward to working with a
    young man from New Jersey, who I think is going to be a great
    U.S. attorney.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, Senator Shelby and
    I have another round.
        I would like to pick up on the Southwest border initiative
    and ask you some questions in that area. Much has been in the
    news about swine flu, H1N1. Reaction to that virus was at times
    a near panic, as we were concerned of a pandemic in the United
    States. But I believe there is another ``pandemic'' in the
    United States, and that is the insatiable demand for drugs.
        And as long as we have an insatiable demand for drugs, we
    are going to be funding the Taliban in Afghanistan and we are
    going to be emboldening and empowering the Mexican cartels.
    There is a great deal in your appropriations request about
    increased agents and the technology they need.
        First of all, let us deal with that. In other words, it
    sounds almost like a Petraeus strategy meets Mexico and our
    border, which is more troops, more gear, more technology. I
    don't dispute that. Obviously, it had an impact. But also we
    need to look at the other side of that, which is the insatiable
    demand.
        Let us talk about the actual violence and what is going on.
    This committee, meaning the Appropriations Committee, has
    already funded staff. We have provided five additional
    helicopters. We have been providing money, resources, and
    manpower.
        Could you tell us what exactly you intend to do with the
    Southwest border initiative? How many agents, how many
    attorneys are needed? What do you see, and what do you estimate
    the cost for that to be? Because we want to do that. Then I
    will come to the demand side.

                          SOUTHWEST BORDER INITIATIVE

        Attorney General Holder. Yes, in 2010, our request is for
    $231 million for the Southwest border. That is for about 1,200
    new positions--632 agents, about 110 attorneys. This would
    include 34 ATF agents, about 70 DEA agents.
        I think there is clearly a need for a balanced strategy,
    and we will talk about the other part of that in your next
    question, for us to have a strong enforcement presence to deal
    with the problem of the drugs flowing into our country. But I
    think there also has to be an effort to deal with the demand
    side as well. So with regard to the enforcement side, that is
    what we are requesting in the 2010 budget.
        Senator Mikulski. So, as I understand, essentially for
    enough manpower, you hope to deploy 632 agents and over 100
    attorneys. As well as 528 agents for the Marshals Service. Are
    those new agents, or are those agents that you are going to
    redeploy from other areas?
        Attorney General Holder. I believe these are all new
    positions. The 1,200 or so, the 1,187 are all new positions
    with regard to agents and attorneys.
        Senator Mikulski. You know, we are placing an awful lot of
    stress on the Marshals Service, and I just want to bring this
    to your attention in a spirit of cordiality. We have asked them
    to take on the Adam Walsh Act in addition to the protection of
    the judges, the transportation of prisoners, who are
    increasingly violent, and the pursuit of the fugitive warrants.
    And now they are going to be intensively involved in the
    Southwest border initiative.
        And I would hope, as we go through this process, in
    addition to looking at the FBI, DEA and ATF, that we also look
    at what we are asking the marshals to do for this initiative,
    which is much needed, in addition to what else have we have
    asked them to do regarding the Adam Walsh Act, which the
    ranking member has addressed. We want to support you in that.
        But let us go to the first line of defense, which is local
    law enforcement in the border communities, and then also the
    whole issue of the demand side. We see that the President has
    asked for more cops on the beat. But when we look at our
    stressed border communities, do you see additional funds and
    resources going into those local law enforcement agencies?
    Because crime and violence will flow back and forth across the
    borders. How do we look at how we are partners with our border
    law enforcement?

                     ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERS

        Attorney General Holder. Well, we have in our budget
    request a total of $2.6 billion for State and local funding,
    and that is in addition to money that is included in the
    Recovery Act of about $4 billion. And I think that is a
    recognition of the fact on the part of this administration that
    for us to be really effective in our law enforcement effort, we
    have to have good State and local partners, and to the extent
    that we can, we need to meet the needs that they have. We have
    to assist them to the extent that we can.
        The Southwest border is a place of particular attention for
    us, and we will be helping our State and local partners there,
    drawing from the pools that I have talked about. But also the
    significant amounts of money that we have asked for is a
    recognition of the fact that the attention that we devote to
    the Southwest border has to be replicated in other parts of the
    country as well.
        We need our State and local partners to have the technology
    and the resources that they need. And we have, as I said, come
    up with pretty substantial amounts of money both in terms of
    State and local funding, plus the COPS program to help our
    State and local partners.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, let me ask you this, conceptually.
    We want to support our border partners, our border communities.
    But what I don't want is for it to be at the expense of other
    States. So while I want to protect the Southwest border
    initiative, I also want to protect southwest Baltimore.
        I believe Southwest border violence is a very significant
    threat and if we don't intervene aggressively now, it will have
    horrific consequences to our security. But at the same time, we
    don't want them competing with Alabama, Utah, Arkansas, et
    cetera, for available resources.
        Is that the way you see it for your cops and your
    interventions and interdictions and preventions?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, and that is why I think our
    requests are as large as they are. So that we will have the
    ability to do all of the things that you just talked about,
    which is to give attention to the Southwest border, but also
    not lose focus on the very important priorities that we have in
    other parts of the country.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, but are they going to be
    sequestered, or if there is going to be funding for cops on the
    beat, will there be a focus on the Southwest border communities
    in addition to other funds for other State and local
    jurisdictions to compete? Or is it all one big pot?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, we have money that is set
    aside for the Southwest border, but we also have substantial
    amounts of money that go for other State and local efforts that
    we are making. So there is not necessarily that competition.
        I would also say that when we look at the Southwest border,
    we have to understand that the efforts that we make there will
    have residual positive impacts in other parts of the country.
    When we announced the takedown of Project Xcellerator 6 or 7
    weeks or so ago, we indicated that some of the people who were
    arrested in connection with the Mexican cartels, and we think
    Southwest border, were involved were from Maryland. And we had
    arrests in Maryland in connection with that and in a variety of
    other States.
        So that----
        Senator Mikulski. But people in Maryland, Alabama, and so
    on are using drugs. I don't want to get into semantics about
    what is sequestered. I think we have got a good picture and
    really want to support the policy. But I want to go to the
    demand side, and I really salute Secretary Clinton, when she
    went to Mexico, and took ownership for our insatiable demand
    for drugs.
        And I just want to speak about my own beloved Baltimore. We
    were on our way. We had a great renaissance momentum, and then,
    bang, in came cocaine. And we have never recovered from it.
    Cocaine really took generation after generation of young people
    in the Baltimore community, across all ethnic and class lines.
    It brought in so much money that it enabled crooks to arm
    themselves at times where they had more and better arms than
    our cops on the beat, et cetera.
        Each administration has been rather tepid, timid and uneven
    in dealing with demand. We have tried ``just say no.'' Just say
    no a little bit more. Let us do a little bit more here or
    there.
        With the Obama administration and your leadership--and I am
    looking to Secretaries Sebelius and Arne Duncan, just across
    the board, is the administration developing a comprehensive
    strategy to really work at the local level? Because it has got
    to be fought at the local level to deal with this demand side.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I would totally agree----
        Senator Mikulski. And I am not talking about hugs for
    crooks. I am talking about the kind of juvenile justice
    prevention programs, et cetera, where we do this early
    intervention.

                           JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS

        Attorney General Holder. No, I totally agree with you. If
    you look at the request we have made on the juvenile justice
    side, we have a request for $317 million. The Drug, Mental
    Health, and Problem-Solving Courts Program, we have $59
    million.
        And there is a recognition of the fact that we have to do
    something on the demand side. As a local judge here in
    Washington, DC, I witnessed that.
        Senator Mikulski. You saw it.
        Attorney General Holder. I saw that. I sent, unfortunately,
    too many young men and women to jail because of drug problems
    that they had and the crimes that they committed as a result.
        Senator Mikulski. But let me ask a question, are you
    developing a comprehensive approach with other Cabinet members?
    Is that underway?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, we are.
        Senator Mikulski. Good. Well, we will come back. I know
    Senator Shelby has to ask questions, and I know your time is
    very limited.
        Let me just conclude by saying some things are really
    working well. And one of the things that I know you witnessed
    as a lawyer, a resident, a judge in this town, is the way we
    all worked so well on the sniper case. And it is these local
    task forces that I am going to emphasize.
        Do you remember when Washington was gripped by the fear of
    the sniper? All games were canceled for children. We were
    afraid to get out of our car and walk into a Burger King. A
    beloved FBI employee was shot coming home from Home Depot.
        And the fact that with our local law enforcement around the
    Beltway working with the Federal officials, we were able to
    catch that sniper. That kind of cooperation continues to exist
    and what we need to build on.
        I am very proud of the kind of task forces that are being
    used in Maryland right now, and I hope that we could have the
    emphasis on task forces. One just broke up a cell phone ring in
    Maryland State prisons, where guys were sitting there ordering
    lobster, shrimp, and ordering contract killing. But thanks to
    the task force approach, we were able to intervene and stop
    them.
        And while we are doing fighting against violent, repugnant
    people, we also have now a task force against mortgage fraud,
    where another type of predator is stalking our communities,
    particularly our low-income residents. So we have got a lot to
    build on, and if we can work together, I think we can make a
    difference and also make that change that President Obama
    wants.
        So I want you to know I think all of us feel that in many
    ways at the local level it is working if we can keep that
    momentum going through these task forces.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Attorney General, I want to go back into the area that
    Senator Alexander was questioning you earlier on. I believe you
    went to the Department of Justice as the Deputy Attorney
    General in 1997. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Holder. That is correct.
        Senator Shelby. I remember. During that time--and you were
    there from 1997 until the Bush administration went into office,
    2001. During that time, I happen to have been the chairman of
    the Intelligence Committee from 1997 to the summer of 2001,
    after you had left. And of course, we interacted with the
    Justice Department.
        As the Deputy Attorney General, you were involved. You were
    a very active deputy, as I recall, and the Intelligence
    Committee dealt with, of course, the CIA and everything that
    goes on.
        Senator Alexander went through some chronological events
    coming from Director Tenet and others as to what happened as
    far as rendition and interrogation of would-be terrorists and
    terrorists during the period before--during the Clinton years
    when you were active there.
        I wasn't clear as to the answer a few minutes ago. So I am
    going to ask this question again. During your tenure as the
    Deputy Attorney General of the United States, 1997 to 2001, did
    you know about these renditions? And if you didn't know, why
    didn't you know because people in Justice knew?

                            INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

        Attorney General Holder. Now I would have to look back. I
    don't know the exact numbers that Senator Alexander----
        Senator Shelby. No, did you know about them? I didn't say
    how many. That was Tenet's testimony, I believe, that has been
    in the record and in the papers that there were 70 or more. But
    did you know about them generally, and did you know about
    interrogation techniques at that time?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I certainly knew generally
    that there were renditions that were occurring. I can't
    honestly say that I knew about specific interrogation
    techniques that were being used at that time.
        Senator Shelby. Would you check the record and furnish this
    to the committee? We think this is an important question
    because a lot of this just didn't start during the Bush
    administration is what I am saying. This interrogation,
    rendition of terrorists had been going on before the Bush
    administration.
        Attorney General Holder. I think, as a distinction, and
    that is the focus of the concern that we have with regard to
    Guantanamo and the things that preceded it is that we had
    American agents, representatives of our Government perhaps,
    involved in the use of techniques that we didn't think were
    appropriate.
        Now I will certainly look at the records----
        Senator Shelby. Will you do that, just for the record? And
    did you or the Attorney General that you were working with, day
    in, day out, or anyone else under your jurisdiction at the
    Department of Justice then approve these renditions and
    interrogations? You had to. But I will wait for your record to
    show.
        Attorney General Holder. We will review those records, and
    I will provide you with a response.
        Senator Shelby. And Mr. Attorney General, if so, what
    precautions were taken to ensure that the renditions and any
    interrogations that were going on in the intelligence
    communities regarding such detainees, what precautions were
    made? In other words, what steps did you go through to see that
    they complied with the law at that time? Can you furnish that
    for the record?
        Attorney General Holder. Sure. I will go through that----
        Senator Shelby. You might have to go back because I know it
    was a while back. But you were in a very important job, as I
    remember interacting with you.
        Attorney General Holder. We will look at those records and
    see what are the numbers, to the extent that I can provide
    those.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Attorney General Holder. And the protections that we used.
    It may be that I have to do this in a classified way, but we
    will provide you with those.
        Senator Shelby. That is okay. We can do that.
        Attorney General Holder. That is fine.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. I would like to get into some other
    things now.
        The GAO study. In April 2009, Mr. Attorney General, a GAO
    study concluded that ICE is not participating or contributing
    to several important intelligence and coordination centers. As
    a result of this lack of cooperation, according to the
    Government Accountability Office, our Government's war on drugs
    is not as productive as it should be.
        The GAO recommended that the Secretary of DHS direct ICE to
    contribute all of its relevant drug-related information to the
    DEA Special Operations Division and ensure that if ICE fully
    participates in both SOD and in the OCD fusion center.
        My question to you, is ICE contributing all of its relevant
    drug-related information to the DEA's Special Operations
    Division? And if not, why not? And if you don't know that, if
    you could furnish that for the record?

                         DRUG INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION

        Attorney General Holder. I share the concern that you have
    expressed, and I have raised that with Secretary Napolitano,
    who I have worked with as a U.S. Attorney in the Clinton
    administration. And we are, together, trying to address that
    issue and trying to make sure that both of our agencies are
    contributing all of the intelligence information that we have.
    And given the resources, given the agencies that we have stood
    up, I think we will make progress in that regard.
        Senator Shelby. Are there other agencies that have not
    participated or refused to participate? It looks to me like you
    have got to coordinate this, and the Department of Justice
    should be right at the top of it.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I would like to think that
    we have a special expertise in the Justice Department in that
    regard.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Attorney General Holder. And we will work with our partners
    at DHS to ensure that ICE becomes fully involved in that
    effort.
        Senator Shelby. Ballistics, very important, I think.
    General, Secretary--I want to call him ``Secretary.'' Attorney
    General Holder, while the President recently endorsed the use
    of ballistics imaging as part of the effort to end gun violence
    along the Southwest border, the committee has been informed
    that DHS, Department of Homeland Security, is not coordinating
    their gun investigations through the ATF, which is----
        Are there any official memorandums of understanding or
    policies in place that you know about requiring the use of
    NIBIN by DHS law enforcement? And if you want to do this for
    the record, that is okay. And could you provide a copy to the
    committee, the chairman, and others, if you could?
        And what is the extent of DHS, Department of Homeland
    Security's coordination with the ATF's project Gunrunner, if
    you know? And if you don't know offhand, I know I am asking you
    a lot of questions.
        Attorney General Holder. Sure.
        Senator Shelby. But we would like to know for the record
    because we fund all these things.

                        COORDINATION BETWEEN DOJ AND DHS

        Attorney General Holder. Right. We will provide for the
    record answers to the specific questions that you have asked.
    But I will say that, generally, I think Secretary Napolitano
    and I both agree that coordination between DHS and the Justice
    Department has not necessarily been as good as it needs to be.
    That is an issue.
        [The information follows:]

                NIBIN, Project Gunrunner, and Ballistics Imaging

        The Department does not have an MOU in place with DHS that requires
    their use of NIBIN. The Department is working towards increased
    communications with DHS but is not aware if DHS has a policy that
    requires their use of NIBIN. Within the Department of Justice, ATF is
    preparing an internal directive that outlines a process for entering
    information into NIBIN. Once the directive is issued, the Department
    will furnish a copy to DHS to provide guidance so that they can
    participate in Project Gunrunner.

        Attorney General Holder. And let us be very frank about
    that, that we have not worked together in a way that is
    efficient and effective.
        Senator Shelby. But the Justice Department has got a lot of
    expertise in this area, hasn't it?
        Attorney General Holder. Oh, absolutely. And DHS brings
    things to the table as well. We need to come up with ways in
    which we coordinate our efforts so that we can be most
    effective. But the concerns that you raise are very legitimate
    ones, and we are trying to address them.
        Senator Shelby. Are you going to be assertive in this area
    to make sure that the expertise of Justice is shared and used
    in this area?
        Attorney General Holder. I wouldn't have taken this job
    unless I was here to advance the interests of an institution in
    which I grew up and which I love. I have great faith in the men
    and women who work in this department. I think we are experts
    in a whole bunch of areas and----
        Senator Shelby. But some of us on the Appropriations
    Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, we see at times
    parallel initiatives that we don't need, and it is very costly,
    in other words, to reinvent the wheel. And you have got the big
    wheel in Justice, and we want to make sure that you are well
    funded and keep it.
        Attorney General Holder. We want to be well funded. I will
    be assertive. But we also want to work with members of this
    committee to identify those areas where you think that there is
    duplication of effort so that we minimize that and that we work
    efficiently together. As I said, we want to be working in
    partnership with you all as well.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Madam Chairman, if you would let me, one last thing? I
    mentioned in my opening statement that there are a number of
    Adam Walsh provisions that will soon expire. Does the
    Department have a legislative plan regarding these expiring
    provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, which I think and others
    thought was a good piece of legislation? And does the
    Department support reauthorization of these provisions designed
    to protect children from pedophiles and sexual predators?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. We support the Walsh Act. We
    have asked for $381 million, which is a 5 percent increase over
    fiscal year 2009, and that would support 50 new Marshals
    Service deputies and a $16 million increase there as well. The
    Walsh Act we think is important, and it is something that we
    support.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Excellent questions, Senator Shelby.
        In the order of arrival, I am going to turn to Senator
    Pryor, one of our newest members and then, of course, have as
    our wrap-up hitter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We
    are so fortunate to be able to have him as both the premier
    authorizer also to bring that wisdom and skill and experience
    to appropriations.
        Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. I agree. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Go ahead.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you very much.
        General Holder, let me start with something that the last
    administration attempted to do, and that is they tried to--in
    their fiscal year 2009 budget, they tried to consolidate the 38
    Federal law enforcement assistance programs like COPS, et
    cetera, into three competitive grant programs. They also, in
    our view, were going to try to under fund those.
        But do you have any plans to do any consolidation along
    those same lines?

                   GRANTMAKING TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

        Attorney General Holder. I am not sure I am totally
    familiar with what the prior administration did. Our hope is to
    have sufficient amounts of money in the programs that we think
    are important, COPS being among them. Certainly Byrne and JAG
    grants.
        We want to have flexibility so that we can be responsive to
    the needs of our State and local partners and be most effective
    in using the resources that we have.
        Senator Pryor. I would encourage you, if you are thinking
    about any changes, to certainly reach out to State and local
    people because they really rely on those grants, and that is,
    in a lot of ways--in a lot of places and a lot of ways, that is
    really critical funding on a local level.
        Let me ask about--there was a story this morning in the
    Washington Post about the--it wasn't totally about the SCAAP
    program, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. As I
    understand it, are you going to try to eliminate that program?
        I know there has been some problems. Some of the States and
    local law enforcement have not been real pleased with some of
    the administration of it. But I think that many of them have
    said that the program is very popular, et cetera.
        Do you know the status of that and what the plan is for
    that, and why?
        Attorney General Holder. We are not asking for additional
    monies for SCAAP in the budget for next year. But one of our
    priorities is making sure that our Nation's borders are
    protected. And although we seek to eliminate funding for SCAAP,
    we have, we think, other monies in the budget. There is $3.4
    billion in DOJ resources to help curtail illegal immigration
    and combat the violence associated with border gangs.
        We think that the SCAAP program, although it has had a
    value, we think we can give greater value by dealing with the
    problem in an enforcement way as opposed to using the limited
    resources that we have to help on the detention side.
        I will say, however, that this is obviously a budget
    proposal that we have, and to the extent that you have strong
    feelings about the SCAAP program, I would be more than glad to
    interact with you, talk to you about that, and see if there are
    ways in which we can meet your concern.
        Senator Pryor. Yes, I would like to talk about that. I just
    want to make sure that we are not dropping something that we
    really need. If you think that you have really got it covered
    in other ways, other areas, I certainly would like to hear more
    about that.
        The last question I really had was about this issue where
    the--I think Congress Daily actually had a little story on it
    today about the dispute between the Department of Justice and
    the Inspector General's Office regarding the FBI's terrorist
    watch list. The IG has been critical of the FBI to the extent
    that the FBI apparently quickly adds and quickly removes people
    from the list.
        I would like to ask you about that criticism, if we can
    call it that, from the IG and how you respond to that and if
    there is any changes that need to be made?

                     IG REPORT ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST

        Attorney General Holder. Yes, we have a great IG, Glenn
    Fine, I have worked with and known him for a long time.
        I have not actually seen the report, but it is my
    understanding that the concerns that were raised in the report
    are serious ones. But that with regard to the issues that were
    raised by the inspector general, they have actually been met.
    Those concerns have been met by the FBI. Changes have been made
    in response to the issues that were raised by the inspector
    general.
        But I will be reviewing the report, and I will be talking
    to the director of the FBI just to make sure that that, in
    fact, is the case. But that is my understanding.
        Senator Pryor. Great. Yes, if you could--if that is not
    correct or if you check back on that and you have a concern
    there, I wish you would check back with us on that.
        Attorney General Holder. I will do that.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you very much.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Pryor.
        I just want to comment. On June 4, we are going to hold our
    hearing on the FBI budget request, and the committee will do
    something different this year. We will hold a public hearing on
    the public programs of the FBI. But as you know, after the
    terrible attack on 9/11, we gave the FBI the responsibility of
    being an agency within an agency, with a significant national
    security responsibility.
        The committee has observed over the years that there are
    certain questions we can't ask in a public setting. One of
    which would be the greater detail of what the gentleman just
    raised that we need to pursue. So we will have a public hearing
    with the FBI and followed by a classified one on how the FBI is
    waging the global war against terrorism, and we look forward to
    your active participation.
        Now, we turn to the number one on Judiciary and number one
    advocate of all that is good about the Justice Department.
        Senator Leahy. I figure being number one at the Judiciary
    is a punishment for past sins, and you and I, Madam Chair,
    remember the good nuns explaining how that works.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you want me to sit here and remember
    past sins?
        Senator Leahy. No, no, no. I remember the good nuns telling
    us about how it catches up with us.
        Mr. Attorney General, it is good to see you. And I know you
    will also be before the Judiciary Committee, but I wanted to
    ask you about the Justice for All Act. In 2004, we passed that,
    a number of us--Republicans and Democrats together. It is a
    crucial bipartisan law, trying to improve the quality of
    justice for all Americans using DNA evidence, so forth. We
    negotiated carefully, worked it.
        Unfortunately, the past administration failed to fund some
    of the key programs created by this important law. And it was a
    consistent struggle. We had the law. We didn't have the funding
    of programs, including the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA
    Testing Grant Program, capital representation, capital
    prosecution improvement grants, Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
    Program, and other activities.
        Will you work with me and with the committee to fully fund
    these vital programs and also to reauthorize the Justice for
    All Act?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, Senator. I am looking around
    here, trying to find my--I have got a great answer to that
    question. I just can't put my hands on it. But, yes, we will
    work with you to ensure that that act is funded in an
    appropriate way.
        The concerns that are addressed by the act are concerns
    that this administration shares. And so, we look forward to
    working with you in that regard.
        Senator Leahy. And I would note that we had people across
    the political spectrum who came together and worked on that.
    Many of the Senators in both parties were, like yourself,
    former prosecutors. I guess you are now the prosecutor for the
    country, but you understand what I am saying.
        And I think, as every prosecutor knows, two things you
    don't want to happen. One, you don't want a guilty person to go
    free, but you also want to make sure when you are prosecuting
    somebody that you have got the right person. Because if you
    don't, aside from the miscarriage of justice, the person who
    committed the crime is still out free, and we are not as safe
    as we think we are.
        Now last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
    the decision to dismiss the case Mohamed v. Jeppesen on State
    secrets grounds. You know that one. The plaintiffs are suing a
    flight company for allegedly helping the CIA transport them
    overseas, where they were tortured.
        The case had been dismissed at the pleading stage. The
    Government used State secrets, and so the trial court just cut
    it off at that point. And the appeals court said that you
    dismiss the case at the pleading stage, it would effectively
    cordon off all secret Government actions from judicial
    scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands
    and limits of the law.
        I agree with the court. I have introduced the State Secrets
    Act, along with others. We have been asking for weeks for the
    Justice Department's position with respect to this bill. We
    haven't gotten an answer. So I will ask you. Do you support the
    State Secrets Protection Act?

                             STATE SECRETS DOCTRINE

        Attorney General Holder. Well, I think our administration
    shares your concern about the use of that doctrine. In fact, I
    have asked that a review be conducted of all the cases in which
    the State secrets doctrine has been invoked. We have about 20
    cases or so where it has been used. The report is just about
    complete. It is my hope to share that report, make it publicly
    available.
        What I have asked the people in the Justice Department to
    do is look at all of these cases and see if we appropriately
    are using the State secrets doctrine in each of those cases. Is
    there a way in which we can use it in those cases where we
    think it is appropriate in a more surgical way so that we don't
    have to perhaps dismiss the whole case? And so, that review is
    just about done, and I would be prepared to share that
    information.
        With regard to the piece of legislation that you have
    indicated, I want to look at that in light of the report that I
    get from the task force that we created and see if there are
    ways in which we can work together to deal with the issue that
    we do share that concern that you have.
        Senator Leahy. Attorney General, we have, you and I have
    talked a lot about the Department of Justice, and I don't begin
    to understand all of the issues that come on your desk. But
    this is an important one, and I would like, as soon as the
    review is done, as soon as it can be shared, I would appreciate
    not only that, but then a position of the department on the
    piece of legislation.
        Brought up today in committee, we put it over. I did that
    knowing I was going to be talking to you today and knowing that
    your review is underway, and it may take a while.
        We are not having a markup next Thursday, as we normally
    do. I will be in Vermont, where I will watch my closest friend
    get an honorary degree from my alma mater. We will celebrate
    our 47th wedding anniversary this year, and if I want to make
    sure we celebrate, I will be there at the graduation.
        My last question, if I might, Madam Chair? In light of what
    I consider shocking opinions by Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury
    and others nominated by President Bush to run the Office of
    Legal Counsel, these opinions secretly authorized interrogation
    techniques. I am looking down the list here that included
    shackling naked people to the ceiling to keep them awake, sleep
    deprivation of up to 11 days at a time, forcing them into a
    small box for up to 18 hours at a time, waterboarding, and so
    on.
        I know you are looking at OLC. And for those who may be
    watching and don't understand, OLC opinions become basically de
    facto rules of law within the administration. Right now, you
    don't have a head of OLC. How critical is it for the Senate to
    confirm Dawn Johnsen as the Assistant Attorney General in
    charge of OLC?

                          CONFIRMATION OF DAWN JOHNSEN

        Attorney General Holder. That is probably my top priority
    now, Senator. OLC is, as you said, an integral part of our
    effort to protect the American people. There is a lot of
    national security work that OLC does. OLC handles a lot of
    other matters for the department.
        They are among the best and brightest in the Justice
    Department. And although we have very capable people who are
    there and a very capable acting person who is leading OLC,
    there is a certain solidity and continuity that you don't have
    unless you have a permanent person there.
        And so, I would hope that we could have Dawn Johnsen, who
    is an extremely qualified lawyer, who will be a great head of
    OLC, confirmed as soon as possible.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
        I hope so, too. We passed her out of committee. She is on
    the floor. I saw that the senior-most Republican in the Senate,
    Senator Lugar, said he will vote for her, and I just wish we
    would go forward because the OLC is so extremely important. It
    is like the Department of Justice's court, and I would like
    that to go forward.
        So, Madam Chair, thank you. I will submit my other
    questions for the record.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. And I
    note when you talked about your best friend getting an honorary
    degree, I gather it is your beloved wife, Marcelle? Is that
    correct?
        Senator Leahy. It is. It is, indeed. And so, I will take
    off.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Senator, with all due respect, she
    shouldn't only get an honorary degree, but if we were talking
    about saints and sinners before, you know what category she is
    in.
        Senator Leahy. It will be her, not me.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, congratulations to her.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. And I will tell Marcelle you said
    that.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, that concludes our
    questions. If there are no further questions this morning,
    Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's
    official record. We are going to request the Department of
    Justice response within 30 days.
        I would also like to add thank you for your testimony
    today, and I would also like to add we are lucky to have you.
        Attorney General Holder. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. I think President Obama has made an
    excellent choice in selecting you. You come with such an
    incredible breadth of experience from working at the NAACP
    through prosecutor days, judges, Justice Department.
        But you are also at the point in this career you could be
    in private practice, in control of your own time. You have
    three wonderful children and a wife who is a physician and
    quite distinguished in her own right. The fact that you are
    willing to take on a very onerous responsibility of
    international as well as domestic responsibilities is
    heartening.
        I am already hearing about all these wonderful young people
    who want to come to work at Justice Department, and they don't
    call it the Justice Department. They say ``at Justice.'' They
    want to ``work at justice,'' and they want to work at the
    Department of Justice to achieve it. And I think your own
    reputation is also already attracting people who want to come,
    whether they are the lawyers or the backup people or those that
    are going to run the prevention and intervention programs.
        [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

                 VIOLENT CRIME/SUPPORT OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Question. A major focus of both the Judiciary Committee and the
    Appropriations Committee so far this year has been ensuring that the
    Federal Government provides the assistance to State and local law
    enforcement that is so important to restoring our economy and keeping
    our communities safe.
        With the massive economic crisis facing us, we see conditions of
    unemployment and hopelessness which can lead to increases in crime.
    States, cities, and towns face budget shortfalls and decreases in tax
    revenues and were at risk having to abandon innovative crime prevention
    strategies and to drastically reduce police forces.
        We have taken major steps toward returning to this successful
    approach. We included nearly $4 billion for State and local law
    enforcement in the economic recovery and investment package enacted
    earlier this year. That package included funding of vital programs like
    Byrne grants, rural drug enforcement assistance, and the Community
    Oriented Policing (COPS) program, as well as funding for critical crime
    victims programs. The Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing
    next week to look at how this funding has been used to support local
    law enforcement efforts in communities across the country.
        Answer. The administration is committed to fully funding the COPS
    program as an effective tool to combat crime and help address police
    brutality and accountability issues in local communities. The research
    available regarding COPS funding clearly validates the program as a
    crime fighting strategy. In its final report on the effectiveness of
    COPS Office grants, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found
    that COPS funding resulted in significant increases in the number of
    sworn officers and produced significant declines in the rates of total
    index crimes, violent crimes and property crimes. Specifically, the
    declines in crimes attributable to COPS expenditures accounted for 10
    percent of the total drop in crime from 1993 to 1998 and approximately
    5 percent from 1993 to 2000. Further, for every dollar in COPS hiring
    grant expenditures per capita there was a reduction of almost 30 index
    crimes per 100,000 persons.
        In a 2007 policy brief from the Brookings Institution, Yale
    University economist John Donohue and Georgetown University economist
    Jens Ludwig state that the COPS program contributed to the drop in
    crime during the 1990s and is one of the most cost-effective options
    for fighting crime. They estimate that each $1.4 billion invested in
    the COPS program is likely to generate a benefit to society from $6
    billion to $12 billion.
        Equally important is the demand we saw for this year's COPS Hiring
    Recovery Program (CHRP). During the application period, COPS fielded
    more than 17,000 calls from agencies detailing failing local economies
    and rising crime rates. For the $1 billion in funding provided by ARRA
    to help create or save approximately 5,500 law enforcement positions
    throughout the country, the COPS Office received requests from more
    than 7,200 State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies asking for
    more than $8.3 billion for nearly 40,000 officers.
        The administration and the Department of Justice strongly support
    providing resources for crime prevention. The Department's Office of
    Justice Programs (OJP) plays a leading role in exploring new crime
    prevention strategies, evaluating their effectiveness, developing best
    practices for crime prevention, and helping State, local, and tribal
    governments implement innovative, effective crime prevention
    initiatives. Many of OJP's largest and best-known programs, such as the
    Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, Byrne Competitive
    Grants, Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, Juvenile Justice Part B
    Formula Grants, Missing and Exploited Children's program and Title V
    Community Prevention Grants programs, support prevention programs. In
    fact, OJP's fiscal year 2010 President's Budget request includes
    approximately $1 billion to support crime prevention programs. This
    includes substantial increases for the Residential Substance Abuse
    Treatment and Second Chance Act/Prisoner Reentry programs as well as
    two new prevention-oriented programs, the Problem-Solving Courts and
    Community-Based Violence Prevention Initiatives. Community-Based
    Violence Prevention Initiatives, adapted from the best violence
    reduction research in the public health field over the last several
    decades, collaborates with community-based organizations and focuses on
    street-level outreach, conflict mediation, and changing community norms
    to reduce violence, particularly shootings. The Problem-Solving Courts
    Initiative builds on the success of OJP's existing Drug Courts and
    Mentally Ill Offender Act/Mental Health Courts initiative by provide
    grants, training, and technical assistance to help State, local, and
    tribal grantees develop and implement problem-solving court strategies.
        Question. At a Judiciary Committee hearing in January, police
    chiefs and policy experts testified that an infusion of Federal money
    for State and local law enforcement would quickly create jobs, bring
    money into the economy, and make neighborhoods safe for the businesses
    and homeowners essential to local economies. Do you agree that Federal
    support for State and local law enforcement is integral to our economic
    recovery?
        Answer. When President Obama signed the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act (ARRA), I stated that this funding is vital to keeping
    our communities strong and that as local law enforcement professionals
    struggle with the current economic crisis, we can't afford to decrease
    our commitment to fighting crime and keeping our communities safe. The
    local law enforcement grants awarded under ARRA will help ensure States
    and localities can make the concerted efforts necessary to protect our
    most vulnerable communities and populations.
        When the administration began discussions about how best to revive
    the lagging economy, creating jobs was the number one priority and the
    COPS program, according to former Associate Attorney General John
    Schmidt who testified at that January hearing, ``has obvious value in
    terms of economic stimulus.'' The funding awarded under CHRP will go
    directly to State, local and tribal law enforcement and will both
    stimulate our economy by creating jobs and keeping our citizens safe.
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides more
    than $4 billion in assistance for State and local law enforcement in
    addition to the $2.9 billion in funding provided for State and local
    law enforcement in the Appropriations Act of 2009. The fiscal year 2010
    President's budget proposal, if enacted as submitted, would provide an
    additional $2.6 billion for State and local law enforcement assistance.
    As part of the fiscal year 2010 budget, the administration is proposing
    a substantial increase for the Second Chance Act program, which will
    combat criminal recidivism among offenders released from the Nation's
    prisons and jails.

                       INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT

        Question. Last Congress, I introduced the Enforcement of
    Intellectual Property Rights Act, which became law in October. The law
    authorized more resources for the Computer Crime and Intellectual
    Property Section and for State and local law enforcement grants.
    Intellectual property rights promote innovation and creativity, long
    recognized as major drivers of the United States economy. Protecting
    intellectual property, in my view, is therefore both a law enforcement
    objective and an important component of our economy recovery efforts.
    How would the Department use the resources authorized by Congress last
    year to improve its effort in combating criminal intellectual property
    theft?
        Answer. The Department is committed to fulfilling the goals of the
    Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property
    (``PRO IP'') Act of 2008 to strengthen Federal intellectual property
    enforcement efforts and improve coordination among Federal agencies in
    meeting our intellectual property protection challenges. The PRO IP Act
    contains a number of important tools to strengthen the ability of the
    Federal Government, State and local law enforcement, and intellectual
    property owners to protect intellectual property. The Department
    appreciates Congress' decision thus far to fund Section 402(a) of the
    PRO IP Act authorizing additional FBI Special Agents dedicated to
    investigating intellectual property offenses. As appropriated, the FBI
    will be able to deploy 31 such Special Agents around the country.
    Specifically, the FBI has allocated 26 agents to support many of the
    Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Units nationwide as well as
    assign 3 agents and two supervisors, who will be housed at the IPR
    Coordination Center, to support the Computer Crime and Intellectual
    Property Section (CCIPS) in order to administer a nationwide IP
    program.
        The PRO IP Act, Section 403, also authorizes, but Congress has not
    yet appropriated, $10 million for the FBI and $10 million to the
    Department for the Criminal Division, respectively, to hire and train
    law enforcement officers to investigate and assist in the prosecution
    of IP crime and to procure forensic resources. If the Department
    received this funding, it would increase the number of Criminal
    Division attorneys dedicated to IP prosecutions. Specifically, in order
    to meet the increased demands posed by the PRO IP Act, the Department
    would increase the number of CCIPS attorneys who are devoted solely to
    intellectual property enforcement.

                     FUNDING FOR CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO BAY

        Question. President Obama ordered the closure of the detention
    facility at Guantanamo Bay and created task forces to determine how
    best to do so and to move forward with effective national security
    policies. In order to put this shameful chapter behind us and do the
    hard work of reinstating our legal process, it will take resources. My
    understanding is that part of the money requested will go toward the
    task forces which are responsible for coming up with these solutions.
    Recognizing that you do not yet have all the final answers on how to
    solve the difficult problem you were left with by the last
    administration, can you tell us why you believe that $30 million sum is
    necessary?
        Answer. On January 22, President Obama issued three executive
    orders and a presidential memorandum that gave significant
    responsibility to the department. These orders require immediate
    interagency action on several fronts: a comprehensive review and
    determination of the appropriate disposition with regard to each
    detainee currently held at Guantanamo Bay; the development of policies
    regarding the detention of individuals apprehended in connection with
    armed conflicts and terrorist activities; and, an evaluation of
    interrogation and transfer practices.
        With regard to the Guantanamo Review Task Force, that Task Force is
    making individualized determinations on the detainees in order to
    facilitate the closure of Guantanamo per the President's Executive
    Order by January of 2010. The other two task forces are required to
    produce reports containing their recommendations in July 2009. There
    are now more than 80 attorneys, including several dozen detailed to
    Washington from our field offices, who are involved in this effort. We
    have also detailed paralegals with classified clearances that are
    involved in the effort.
        The Department requested $30 million in the 2009 war supplemental
    for the task forces. These task forces are tasked with work that has
    extraordinary consequences for the country, and we took significant
    steps to stand up structures utilizing dozens of attorneys and subject
    matter experts from around the country in order to facilitate their
    work. Much of this work cannot be done in an ordinary work environment.
    To give you a sense of the effort involved, we have:
      --Established the Task Force reviewing and making disposition
            determinations regarding the detainees at Guantanamo at an
            offsite facility that enables the task force members to work at
            the Top Secret/SCI level; they are reviewing tens of thousands
            of pages of classified documents. Our costs for this effort
            cover the agents, analysts and attorneys to perform those legal
            reviews.
      --This work must be done in a classified, secure environment, using
            secure networks, classified-capable computers, scanning
            devices, phones, and copiers. We had to ensure we had secure
            electronic document handling capabilities. We are carrying the
            costs for this secure office space, for the Top Secret/SCI
            clearances required for our detailees, and for outfitting these
            Task Forces with the secure equipment required for their work.
      --Finally, we have entered into Automated Litigation Support
            arrangements to facilitate the massive document review effort,
            and also to ensure that the records of this effort are
            maintained properly and securely.
        The costs for classified reviews of this magnitude are tangible. We
    greatly appreciate the support the Committee can give the Department in
    this extraordinary effort.

                       NEW FOIA GUIDELINES AND RESOURCES

        Question. During my 30-plus years in the Senate, I have always
    believed that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a critical
    mechanism to ensure that our tradition of open government is preserved
    for future generations. I was pleased that, as one of his first
    official acts, President Obama issued a directive to strengthen FOIA
    and that you recently issued new FOIA guidelines that restore the
    presumption of openness for government information. I commend these
    important steps to restore confidence in our government and I believe
    that they will help reverse the troubling trend of excessive government
    secrecy that we witnessed during the last administration. Does the
    Department have sufficient resources, staffing and funding to fully
    implement your new FOIA guidelines?
        Answer. Yes, we believe that the Department has sufficient
    resources to fully implement my new FOIA guidelines. The Office of
    Information Policy operates on a fully reimbursable basis to promote
    effective FOIA operations across the Executive Branch. We will of
    course monitor this situation and work with the Congress if we conclude
    that existing resources are insufficient.
        Question. If not, what can Congress do to help ensure that the
    laudable goals of the President's FOIA directive and your new FOIA
    guidelines become a reality?
        Answer. As stated in the previous response, we believe the
    Department has sufficient resources to implement our new FOIA
    Guidelines at the present time.
       patriot act reauthorization unanswered letter asking for proposals
        Question. Key parts of the Patriot Act allowing the government to
    undertake certain intelligence gathering and surveillance activities
    are set to ``sunset'' this year. The Judiciary Committee is currently
    reviewing whether and how to extend these authorities so that we can
    ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it need to keep
    the Nation safe without unduly infringing on the personal freedoms of
    Americans. I wrote to you 2 months ago asking you to provide the
    Department's legislative proposals for extending or modifying these
    Patriot Act authorities by March 31. I still await an answer to that
    letter. As you know, legislation on these matters requires careful
    attention and sufficient time for consideration without the undue
    pressure provided by pending deadlines. When can we expect the
    Department's proposals for reauthorization of the Patriot Act?
        Answer. We have received your letter and are working with the
    administration with the administration to get our views transmitted as
    quickly as possible.

           OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL--OPR REPORT AND JOHNSEN NOMINATION

        Question. There has been a lot of speculation and even reporting
    about the long awaited Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
    report on the legal advice provided by Office of Legal Counsel
    attorneys who drafted the controversial memos giving legal cover for
    the brutal treatment of detainees. I fear there is significant
    misunderstanding of the jurisdiction of OPR and the scope of that
    report. Can you clarify what issue the OPR report is considering and
    whether it had access to on the record interviews with former Vice
    President Cheney and his staff and others in the White House or whether
    OPR's reach was limited in any way from a complete and comprehensive
    investigation?
        Answer. OPR is conducting an investigation into whether legal
    advice in several Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda regarding
    enhanced interrogation techniques was consistent with the standards of
    professional conduct that apply to Department of Justice attorneys. We
    cannot comment further on this pending investigation.
                                     ______

               Question Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

                                  COPS FUNDING

        Question. Due to actions of past administrations, the New Jersey
    cities of Camden and Newark have been banned from receiving Federal
    funds for the COPS program to hire additional police officers from the
    Economic Recovery Act. Will you commit to working with me, New Jersey's
    State Attorney General and the City of Newark to develop a plan to
    address the concerns of the Department of Justice, while allowing the
    cities of Camden and Newark to access COPS funding to hire additional
    police officers under the Economic Recovery Act?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is committed to helping local law
    enforcement during these difficult economic times; however, we must
    also remain committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent
    wisely and that all instances of waste, fraud or abuse are dealt with
    appropriately. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
    (OIG) found that Camden and Newark violated the grant terms and
    conditions associated with their COPS grants. Both cities chose not to
    repay the amount of the violations, but rather opted to accept the 3-
    year bar from receiving COPS funds.
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009
    appropriated $1 billion for the COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) to
    create or save law enforcement positions across the country. The COPS
    Office received over 7,200 applications from law enforcement agencies
    across the country under CHRP, with requests totaling more than $8.3
    billion. COPS grants are carefully monitored and there are serious
    consequences from misuse. This is particularly important regarding ARRA
    funds.
        To remedy violations with past grants, both the City of Camden and
    the City of Newark have been barred from receiving COPS funding until
    2010. Both agencies have been in frequent contact with the COPS Office
    to discuss the options available, including repayment of funds with a
    combined total of over $1.2 million, but both declined to choose
    repayment as a remedy and opted instead for a 3-year bar.
        Camden will complete its 3-year bar period on May 30, 2010, and
    Newark will complete its 3-year bar period on December 6, 2010. The
    Department looks forward to working with both cities at that time to
    identify funding opportunities that will be available in the COPS
    Office future year budgets.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                        EXPLOSIVES TRAFFICKING IN MEXICO

        Question. The Associated Press reported in April that Mexico has
    seized more than 2,702 grenades since the start of President Felipe
    Calderon's term in December 2006, compared to 59 during the first 2
    years of the previous administration. There has been much focus of your
    Department on the trafficking of firearms to Mexico and tracing the
    origins of firearms recovered at crime scenes, but we have heard little
    in regard to the serious threat from explosives trafficking. It is only
    a matter of time before these cartels use these devices on our side of
    the border. Does DOJ have adequate resources in Mexico to assist the
    military and law enforcement in identifying recovered explosives?
        Answer. The United States Bomb Data Center (USBDC) currently
    fulfills explosive trace requests in the United States. The USBDC does
    not currently trace all explosives recovered or seized in Mexico.
    However, Mexican officials have recognized the value in tracing
    recovered explosives and have expressed interest in establishing formal
    protocols for tracing all explosives recovered or seized in Mexico.
        The USBDC currently has two employees that focus on explosives
    traces. The USBDC conducts about 140 traces a year, each of which takes
    about 3 weeks to complete, due to the extensive research required. An
    increase in trace demand from Mexico would likely slow down the trace
    processing timeline. Additionally, there is currently only one ATF
    special agent with advanced explosives training located in Mexico. At
    some point, additional resources in Mexico may be required.
        Question. Does DOJ have adequate resources at the U.S. Bomb Data
    Center to trace the enormous increase in grenades recovered in Mexico
    and analyze the data from these traces?
        Answer. Coordination Group for the Control and Arms, Ammunition and
    Explosives traffic for Mexico's law enforcement intelligence community,
    (CENAPI GC-Armas), recently reported that Mexico has recovered or
    seized 3,161 hand grenades since President Calderon took office in
    December 2006. The 940 grenades have also been turned in, over the same
    period through the Mexican military's ``Change of Arms'' program. The
    program is similar to gun buy-back programs in the United States.
        Currently, there are 16 FTEs assigned to the U.S. Bomb Data Center
    (USBDC), and 2 FTEs are assigned to perform the explosives traces. The
    Department anticipates that our law enforcement partners in Mexico will
    continue to recover grenades at the same rate as they have experienced
    in the last 2 years. Accordingly, the USBDC would need to accommodate
    an increase of approximately 1,600 grenade traces each year. Even if
    Mexico submitted requests to trace 10 percent of the aforementioned
    recoveries/seizures, the workload would more than double at the USBDC,
    significantly affecting the turnaround time for all traces--domestic
    and foreign.
        Question. Can you provide this committee with statistics on the
    recovery of grenades in the United States for the same time period for
    comparison purposes?
        Answer. According to the information reported to the U.S. Bomb Data
    Center (USBDC) by Federal, State and local agencies contributing to the
    Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS), there have been 148 hand grenades
    seized or recovered in the United States since December 1, 2006.
    Although the Department encourages the reporting of all explosives
    incidents to the USBDC by Federal, State and local law enforcement
    agencies, there is no mandate that requires such reporting.
    Consequently, the Department can not verify that all incidents are
    reported.
        Question. Does DOJ have adequate resources for the investigation of
    the explosives related incidents involving these criminal organizations
    along the Southwest Border?
        Answer. ATF currently has a limited number of certified explosives
    specialists (CESs) assigned to Southwest Border States. Although ATF
    does solely support Southwest Border explosives investigations, the
    CESs in this region are their field divisions' primary resources for
    all explosives investigations. From the regulatory aspect, ATF's
    Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs) are required to perform
    explosives applications inspections and to inspect every explosives
    licensee/permittee at least once every 3 years in order to comply with
    the Safe Explosives Act. ATF currently has approximately 632 IOIs in
    the field, and their workload includes the performance of application
    and/or compliance inspections for approximately 107,000 Federal
    firearms licensees and 13,000 Federal explosives licensees.
        Question. Does DOJ have adequate resources for the follow-up
    investigation of explosives traces conducted by the Bomb Data Center?
        Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2010
    includes 35 additional ATF agents, stationed along the Southwest
    Border. These agents will be able to assist in follow-up investigations
    of explosives traces conducted by the Bomb Data Center. It is possible
    that additional investigative resources may be required to follow up on
    explosives traces.

                 EXPLOSIVES/GRENADE TRACING RESOURCES IN MEXICO

        Question. On October 11, 2008, the United States Consulate in
    Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico was attacked with assailants using small
    arms fire and a fragmentation grenade. On January 6, 2009, a television
    station located in the same Mexican city was attacked by individuals
    who fired shots at the building and threw a hand grenade over the
    perimeter wall. In light of these attacks and the increase in grenade
    recoveries, I would presume the Mexican government is requesting U.S.
    assistance in explosives related training. What efforts have you taken
    to provide explosives training to Mexican military and law enforcement
    authorities?
        Answer. Following grenade attacks in Mexico, Mexico's intelligence
    agency, the Center for Research and National Security (CISEN), was
    tasked by President Calderon to develop a cadre of agents that are
    familiar with explosives and explosives investigations. In November
    2008 the Department provided explosives identification training in
    Tucson, Arizona to 15 CISEN agents.
        CISEN and other Mexican law-enforcement and security agencies have
    asked for additional training, particularly in the area of post-blast
    investigation. While the Department has not provided additional
    training since November 2008, it is ready to continue working with the
    Department of State to identify training opportunities for Mexican law
    enforcement personnel.
        Question. Can you provide this committee with planned training
    activities for next fiscal year and where these activities will take
    place?
        Answer. The majority of explosives related training is provided to
    Federal, State, and local agencies. The Department plans to deliver a
    wide variety of explosives training courses in fiscal year 2010. No
    specific programs for Mexico have been planned yet, but the Department
    will work with the Department of State to identify any opportunities
    for such programs. Should such programs be initiated, training could be
    provided at either the National Center for Explosives Training and
    Research at Huntsville, Alabama, or elsewhere in the United States or
    Mexico.
        Question. Is this training sufficient to meet the demand from the
    Mexican government?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is working with the State
    Department to identify training opportunities and programs for Mexican
    law enforcement.

                              ATF CANINE TRAINING

        Question. How many DOJ certified explosives detection canines are
    there currently in Mexico? Has the Mexican government requested
    additional explosives detection canines from DOJ?
        Answer. There are currently 9 DOJ certified explosives detection
    canines in Mexico. The Mexican government, through the office of the
    ATF Assistant Country Attache, has requested that a total of 80
    explosives detection canines be trained and in place by fiscal year
    2013.
        Question. What is the current capacity at the DOJ canine training
    facility to train United States and foreign explosives detection
    canines?
        Answer. The capacity at the ATF National Canine Training and
    Operations Center (NCTOC) allows for the training of approximately 48
    new explosives detection canines each year.
        Question. Is this capacity adequate to meet the demand for canines?
    If not, can you provide the committee with the amount of resources and
    space needed to address any backlog of canine training?
        Answer. The demand for DOJ-certified canines is extensive and as a
    result, DOJ is experiencing backlogs at the ATF National Canine
    Training and Operations Center. The current backlog for explosives
    detection canines is 1-2 years and the wait for accelerant detection
    canines exceeds 2 years. In addition to training new canines, ATF also
    provides recertification and advanced training in support of
    approximately 3,000 explosives and accelerant detection canine teams
    currently in service with law enforcement agencies in the United
    States.

                      SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING--GUANTANAMO BAY

        Question. The 2009 supplemental funding request includes $30
    million for the Justice Department to review the status detainees still
    held at Guantanamo to determine if they need to be tried or released.
    How will the Department spend this $30 million?
        Answer. On January 22, President Obama issued three executive
    orders and a presidential memorandum that gave significant
    responsibility to the department. These orders require immediate
    interagency action on several fronts: a comprehensive review and
    determination of the appropriate disposition with regard to each
    detainee currently held at Guantanamo Bay; the development of policies
    regarding the detention of individuals apprehended in connection with
    armed conflicts and terrorist activities; and, an evaluation of
    interrogation and transfer practices.
        With regard to the Guantanamo Review Task Force, that Task Force is
    making individualized determinations on the detainees in order to
    facilitate the closure of Guantanamo per the President's Executive
    Order by January of 2010. The other two task forces are required to
    produce reports containing their recommendations in July 2009. There
    are now more than 80 attorneys, including several dozen detailed to
    Washington from our field offices, who are involved in this effort. We
    have also detailed paralegals with classified clearances that are
    involved in the effort.
        The Department requested $30 million in the 2009 war supplemental
    for the task forces. These task forces are tasked with work that has
    extraordinary consequences for the country, and we took significant
    steps to stand up structures utilizing dozens of attorneys and subject
    matter experts from around the country in order to facilitate their
    work. Much of this work cannot be done in an ordinary work environment.
    To give you a sense of the effort involved, we have:
      --Established the Task Force reviewing and making disposition
            determinations regarding the detainees at Guantanamo at an
            offsite facility that enables the task force members to work at
            the Top Secret/SCI level; they are reviewing tens of thousands
            of pages of classified documents. Our costs for this effort
            cover the agents, analysts and attorneys to perform those legal
            reviews.
      --This work must be done in a classified, secure environment, using
            secure networks, classified-capable computers, scanning
            devices, phones, and copiers. We had to ensure we had secure
            electronic document handling capabilities. We are carrying the
            costs for this secure office space, for the Top Secret/SCI
            clearances required for our detailees, and for outfitting these
            Task Forces with the secure equipment required for their work.
      --Finally, we have entered into Automated Litigation Support
            arrangements to facilitate the massive document review effort,
            and also to ensure that the records of this effort are
            maintained properly and securely.
        The costs for classified reviews of this magnitude are tangible. We
    greatly appreciate the support the Committee can give the Department in
    this extraordinary effort.
        Question. Could this be just the beginning of what some estimate to
    be a $1 billion cost to the Department?
        Answer. Beyond the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request, the
    Department has included $60 million in the 2010 budget for matters
    relating to Guantanamo detainees, including:
      --Secure detention housing, including hardening facilities during
            trial (USMS and BOP costs) and U.S. Marshals Service security
            command posts;
      --Secure air transport, specialized local transportation provided by
            USMS, armored vehicles with secure communications equipment,
            hardened cell blocks and sally ports, and overall hardening of
            our courthouses;
      --Communication costs;
      --Linguists to communicate/facilitate instructions during trial;
      --Electronic surveillance equipment (USMS protective intelligence
            installs counter-surveillance devices to protect the Federal
            judiciary);
      --Litigation costs (U.S. Attorneys, NSD, and CRM); and
      --Other costs such as specialized training and fees and expenses of
            witnesses who testify.
        Question. Can you give us some indication about the amount of
    taxpayer funds estimated to be needed to transport, imprison and
    prosecute these detainees over the next 5 years?
        Answer. Currently our planning estimates of costs do not extend
    beyond the first year. The $60 million first-year estimate we have
    developed assumes that some trial or pre-trial preparations and custody
    will be in process. The estimate includes: secure detention housing,
    secure detainee transportation, court security, communication costs,
    litigation costs, and other expenses.
        Question. Will you reimburse the State and local governments for
    their increased law enforcement costs related to the movement,
    incarceration and prosecution of these terrorists?
        Answer. Currently our planning estimates of costs do not assume
    reimbursements for State and local governments.
        Question. Will the administration send up another supplemental in
    the near future to cover these costs to the Department?
        Answer. As stated previously, our current cost estimates of $30
    million for fiscal year 2009 and $60 million for fiscal year 2010
    represent our best estimate at this time of the total costs for these
    task forces. We do not plan to seek additional supplemental funds for
    these reviews.
                              DOJ LEGAL AUTHORITY

        Question. General Holder, my colleague from Alabama, Senator
    Sessions, wrote to you over a month ago asking whether the Federal
    Government has the current legal authority to admit into the United
    States any prisoner held at the military detention facility at
    Guantanamo Bay who participated in terrorist related activities or
    training. Does the Government have the authority to admit these
    terrorists into the United States? When can we expect a written answer
    to my colleague's letter?
        Answer. On June 16, 2009 we responded to the letters from Senator
    Sessions. However, as I testified before the subcommittee with regard
    to the release decisions we will make, we will look at these cases on
    an individualized basis and make determinations as to where they can
    appropriately be placed within the spirit and letter of the law.

                                   INFLUENZA

        Question. Currently the Department has thousands of agents working
    in Mexico and along the southern border. Given the recent widespread
    outbreak of H1N1 influenza can you tell us specifically what the
    Department has done to ensure the safety and health of its agents?
        Answer. The health and safety of the Department's employees is of
    utmost importance to me. DOJ has been monitoring the spread of H1N1
    since the start of the outbreak and has undertaken outreach to ensure
    that employees are aware of symptoms of H1N1, preventative measures to
    guard against infection, and HR flexibilities, such as teleworking and
    alternative work schedules. Following are some of the actions taken by
    DOJ law enforcement entities to ensure the safety of their employees.
      --The FBI purchased protective equipment, including surgical masks,
            hand sanitizer solutions, and workspace disinfectant for wide
            availability, including for those employees on the southern
            border, and obtained N95 respirators for select employees whose
            duties are most likely to bring them into close contact with
            members of the public suffering from upper respiratory
            infections.
      --The USMS Prisoner Operations Division issued guidance to advise
            personnel to be vigilant in detecting symptoms in prisoners in
            USMS custody.
      --ATF issued a broadcast to employees that provided a link to
            Pandemic Flu Awareness training.
      --In conjunction with DHS, the Department issued a ``dual seal''
            document that provides instruction to law enforcement and
            security personnel on how to prepare for and handle those they
            encounter who exhibit H1N1 flu symptoms.

                   EXPIRING PROVISIONS OF THE ADAM WALSH ACT

        Question. There are a number of Adam Walsh provisions expiring in
    fiscal year 2009. Has the Department contemplated a legislative plan
    regarding the expiring provisions of the Adam Walsh Act?
        Answer. The Adam Walsh Act is a significant and landmark piece of
    legislation. We believe any expiring provisions which serve to protect
    the public welfare and the safety of children should be extended. The
    Department is currently reviewing the provisions of the Adam Walsh
    Child Protection and Safety Act (the Adam Walsh Act) that are set to
    expire in fiscal year 2009, and looks forward to working with Congress
    to discuss these expiring provisions.
        There are two ``Authorization of Appropriations'' provisions of the
    Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) (Title I of the
    Adam Walsh Act) with terms from 2007 to 2009. Section 126(d) of SORNA
    (42 U.S.C. 16926(d)) authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' to
    the Sex Offender Management Assistance program authorized by section
    126(a) of SORNA (42 U.S.C. 16926(a)). Section 142(b) of SORNA provides
    for ``such sums as may be necessary'' to utilize Federal law
    enforcement resources to assist local jurisdictions in locating and
    apprehending sex offenders who violate their registration requirements.
    No other portion of SORNA is ``expiring'' in fiscal year 2009.
        On May 26, 2009, pursuant to his statutory authority under 42
    U.S.C. 16924(b) to grant ``two one-year extensions of the deadline,''
    the Attorney General extended the deadline for these expiring
    provisions to July 27, 2010. States now have until that date to come
    into compliance with the requirements of SORNA.
        Question. Does the Department support reauthorization of these
    provisions designed to protect children from pedophiles and sexual
    predators?
        Answer. The Department is committed to protecting the Nation's
    children from pedophiles and sexual predators, and fully supports the
    programs outlined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. We
    look forward to working with Congress to discuss reauthorization of
    expiring provisions in the Act.
        Question. What changes if any will DOJ propose?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is reviewing the Adam Walsh Act
    and looks forward to working with Congress to determine any changes
    that need to be made.
        Question. Does the Department support the requirement that sexual
    predators must register with local authorities?
        Answer. The Department of Justice believes that requiring
    registration with local authorities will aid law enforcement in
    ensuring compliance with both State and Federal laws. Since the launch
    of the Dru National Sex Offender Public Website in 2005, millions of
    parents, employers, and other concerned residents have utilized the
    Website as a safety resource, identifying location information on sex
    offenders residing, working, and going to school not only in their own
    neighborhoods but in other nearby States and communities as well.

                               NIBIN--BALLISTICS

        Question. Are there any official MOU's or policies in place
    requiring the use of NIBIN by DHS law enforcement? If not, why not? If
    so, please provide a copy for the record.
        Answer. An MOU does not currently exist between the Department of
    Justice and Homeland Security requiring the use of NIBIN by DHS law
    enforcement. We are looking at how to best facilitate DHS' use of
    NIBIN, including outlining a process for entering information into
    NIBIN.
        Question. What is the extent of DHS's coordination with ATF's
    Project Gunrunner?
        Answer. Project Gunrunner is an anti-firearms trafficking operation
    to stem the flow of illegal firearms purchased in the United States
    into Mexico. As Project Gunrunner is focused on the border, ATF
    coordinates extensively with DHS's Custom and Border Protection and
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
        Question. What specific initiatives does DOJ have in place to
    ensure that all firearms seized by Customs and Border Protection and
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement are being processed thru the ATF's
    NIBIN and the ballistics databases?
        Answer. The Department is looking at how best to facilitate DHS's
    use of NIBIN, including outlining a process for entering information
    into NIBIN.
        Question. How are the data from etrace and NIBIN being integrated
    and mapped along with other relevant crime data from the border?
        Answer. The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), which is an
    intelligence sharing organization focusing on the Southwest Border,
    houses employees from 22 Federal, State, and local agencies, including
    ATF. By participating in EPIC, ATF is able to integrate the data
    available from NIBIN with other crime data from the border. In
    addition, ATF's Violent Crime and Analysis Branch analyzes data derived
    from traces to develop a comprehensive enforcement strategy by mapping
    the trace data to specific geographic areas. This information is used
    to form an integrated intelligence-driven policing strategy.
        Question. Are all guns seized by the Mexican authorities being
    processed by the ATF?
        Answer. The Department is only aware of the weapons that the
    Mexican authorities have submitted to ATF for tracing and processing.
    The Department has no way to ascertain whether the weapons sent to ATF
    encompass the entire universe of weapons seized by Mexican authorities.
    Mexican authorities possess the Integrated Ballistic Imaging System
    (IBIS) technology allowing them to process firearms in their
    possession. ATF recently received $3.2 million to update its IBIS
    equipment to allow ATF's technology to interact with Mexico's
    ballistics equipment.

                                  BORDER CZAR

        Question. The administration recently announced the creation of a
    Border Czar. What is the Border Czar role and what actual assets will
    they control?
        Answer. I believe that the new ``border czar,'' Alan Bersin, will
    help bring a more comprehensive view of border security to the
    government. Alan brings years of vital experience working with local,
    State and international partners to help meet the challenges we face at
    our borders. As a former U.S. Attorney, Alan knows the Department of
    Justice and the entire justice system. I understand that his
    responsibilities at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will
    include improving relationships with the DHS's partners in the
    international community, as well as those at the State and local level
    including elected officials, law enforcement, community organizations
    and religious leaders. The DHS will determine the specifics of this
    position, including the actual assets (if any) that the Border Czar
    will control.
        Question. Can they direct any DOJ resources?
        Answer. Secretary Napolitano and I are both personally committed to
    a strong partnership between the Departments of Justice and Homeland
    Security. We understand that need for close collaboration and seamless
    cooperation between our Departments. While our specific strategic and
    operational protocols with the Border Czar have not been finalized, we
    don't expect new Border Czar to direct the allocation of DOJ resources.
        Question. Do you have to coordinate with the Czar on investigations
    or allocating DOJ resources on or near the border?
        Answer. As discussed above, Secretary Napolitano and I are both
    personally committed to a strong partnership between the Departments of
    Justice and Homeland Security. We understand that need for close
    collaboration and seamless cooperation between our Departments. Our
    respective departments routinely work together effectively in areas of
    joint concern, but given the importance of cooperation and coordination
    between our departments, there is always room for improvement. To that
    end, one of my first actions after becoming Attorney General was to
    meet with Secretary Napolitano and discuss how we might improve
    cooperation and coordination between our departments, and together we
    have established a high-level working group of agency senior staff to
    address these issues. Moreover, we continue to meet regularly to confer
    on operational and budget issues, as does our senior staff. We are
    confident that we can work together to further improve coordination
    between our departments.
        In point of fact, DOJ and DHS law enforcement agencies have worked
    successfully together for decades on investigations and prosecutions
    involving drug trafficking, money laundering, firearms trafficking, and
    border violence issues. ICE's predecessor U.S. Customs (formerly in the
    Treasury Department) and the U.S. Coast Guard (formerly in the
    Department of Transportation) have both been members of the Organized
    Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) since OCDETF's inception in
    1982, along with the Treasury Department's IRS-Criminal Investigations
    Division, and DOJ's DEA, FBI, ATF, USMS, and prosecutors in the 94 U.S.
    Attorney's Offices and Criminal Division.
        Every day agents in these OCDETF task forces across the country and
    along the Southwest Border continue to work together to disrupt and
    dismantle the most significant drug trafficking and money laundering
    cartels that operate along the Southwest Border and elsewhere. In fact,
    ICE participates in approximately 44 percent of all currently active
    OCDETF cases. CE and USCG are particularly valuable members of OCDETF'
    Co-located Strike Forces, including the Panama Express Strike Force,
    which have so far interdicted more than 850 tons of cocaine in the
    maritime transit zones between the sources in Colombia, the
    transporters in Mexico, and the end users in the United States. DOJ
    will continue to emphasize planning, coordination, and this type of
    multi-agency approach to ensure the most effective working
    relationships that will minimize jurisdictional conflicts.
        Question. Does the Border Czar have any operational control of any
    law enforcement function?
        Answer. The Deputy Attorney General directs the overall
    Departmental strategy against the Mexican cartels. In addition, the
    Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division will be
    coordinating extensively with Alan Bersin in his role as DHS Assistant
    Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for
    Border Affairs.

                                   GAO STUDY

        Question. Why is ICE not participating nor contributing to these
    multi-agency efforts?
        Answer. DOJ and DHS law enforcement agencies have worked
    successfully together for decades on investigations and prosecutions
    involving drug trafficking, money laundering, firearms trafficking, and
    border violence issues. ICE's predecessor U.S. Customs (formerly in the
    Treasury Department) and the U.S. Coast Guard (formerly in the
    Department of Transportation) have both been members of the Organized
    Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) since OCDETF's inception in
    1982, along with the Treasury Department's IRS-Criminal Investigations
    Division, and DOJ's DEA, FBI, ATF, USMS, and prosecutors in the 94 U.S.
    Attorney's Offices and Criminal Division.
        Every day agents in these OCDETF task forces across the country and
    along the Southwest Border continue to work together to disrupt and
    dismantle the most significant drug trafficking and money laundering
    cartels that operate along the Southwest Border and elsewhere. In fact,
    ICE participates in approximately 44 percent of all currently active
    OCDETF cases. ICE and USCG are particularly valuable members of
    OCDETF's Co-located Strike Forces, including the Panama Express Strike
    Force, which have so far interdicted more than 850 tons of cocaine in
    the maritime transit zones between the sources in Colombia, the
    transporters in Mexico, and the end users in the United States. MOU
    between DEA and ICE, ICE agrees to fully participate at OFC and SOD,
    both in terms of staffing and information sharing, and to provide
    seizure data to EPIC, which will greatly enhance the sharing of
    intelligence between DEA and ICE.
        Question. Are there any other agencies that refuse to participate?
        Answer. The Department is not aware of other agencies refusing to
    participate.
        Question. What is the impact on drug investigations as a result of
    ICE refusing to participate with the rest of the interagency community?
        Answer. Secretary Napolitano and I are both personally committed to
    a strong partnership between the Departments of Justice and Homeland
    Security. We understand that need for close collaboration and seamless
    cooperation between our Departments. Our respective departments
    routinely work together effectively in areas of joint concern, but
    given the importance of cooperation and coordination between our
    departments, there is always room for improvement. To that end, one of
    my first actions after becoming Attorney General was to meet with
    Secretary Napolitano and discuss how we might improve cooperation and
    coordination between our departments, and together we have established
    a high-level working group of agency senior staff to address these
    issues. On June 18, 2009, DEA and ICE signed a new Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU) that updates the previous MOU from 1994. As part of
    the recently signed agreement, ICE agrees to fully participate at OFC
    and SOD, both in terms of staffing and information sharing, and to
    provide seizure data to EPIC, which will greatly enhance the sharing of
    intelligence with the rest of interagency community.

                               SECOND CHANCE ACT

        Question. General Holder the Second Chance Act provides job
    training for convicted felons. Can you tell us how much is in your
    request for assisting felons rehabilitating them and assisting them in
    finding employment?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2010, the administration is requesting
    $13.8 million for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to implement a
    comprehensive reentry strategy called the Inmate Skills Development
    (ISD) initiative that has been developed on a competency-based model
    that measures success by skill acquisition. The process includes an
    assessment of an inmate's strengths and skill deficits upon admission,
    the development of an individualized plan to address skill deficits,
    and the monitoring of skill enhancements throughout incarceration. This
    framework is predicated on beginning the preparation of an inmate's
    release to the community when he or she first comes into the BOP and on
    a consistent basis throughout their incarceration, as well as
    developing partnerships and resources to assist in a successful
    transition to the community.
        Of the $100 million requested for the Office of Justice Programs
    (OJP), much of the funding will go directly to grant funds for States,
    localities and tribes, and each of these entities will submit
    applications for funding that will address a variety of reentry related
    initiatives. These initiatives may focus on substance abuse treatment,
    mental health treatment, cognitive skill development and motivational
    interviewing, as well as housing or employment. There are many
    components of successful and evidenced based reentry efforts, and thus
    we assume the majority of applicants will put forth applications that
    comprise one or more components to improve an offender's life, one that
    leads to positive behavior and contributions to the community in which
    the offender resides. We also plan to use a portion of the funds for
    research to improve the knowledge base of effective reentry strategies.
        Question. Given that the Department is working to ensure that this
    program is a success how many of the felons who in the process of being
    rehabilitated will be working at the Department?
        Answer. Funding and implementation of offender reentry programs
    that reduce recidivism and enhance public safety is an important
    priority for the Department of Justice. The Office of Justice Programs
    plans to coordinate extensively with the Department of Labor's
    Employment and Training Administration and other agencies in
    administering the programs authorized by the Second Chance Act
    including developing a program that will allow for the hiring of
    offenders who are involved in rehabilitative efforts in some of our
    community based programs.
        Question. If the Department has no initiative could you report back
    to the committee in 30 days on a suggested pilot program we could set
    up at DOJ headquarters?
        Answer. Certainly, the Department can follow-up with the Committee
    regarding the development of such a program.

                             INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

        Question. Provide an update on the execution of this funding and
    outline what efforts the Department intends to take in the future to
    ensure that intellectual property crimes are vigorously investigated
    and prosecuted?
        Answer. The Department takes intellectual property crimes very
    seriously and I am grateful for the resources provided in the fiscal
    year 2009 Appropriation for 46 positions (31 Special Agents and 15
    Professional Staff) to support the FBI's investigations of Intellectual
    Property crimes. Of these positions, five Special Agents will be
    assigned to the Intellectual Property Rights Unit, within the Cyber
    Criminal Section at the FBI Headquarters. The remaining 26 Special
    Agents will work in coordination with the Department of Justice
    Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Units in the following FBI
    Field Offices: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Washington, DC,
    Seattle, San Antonio, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, Newark,
    Miami, Memphis, Kansas City, Detroit, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Boston,
    Baltimore, and Atlanta. I will continue to work with the administration
    and Congress on resource requirements to address this issue.

                           SECOND CHANCE DUPLICATION

        Question. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) currently
    administers more than 82 grant programs. The sponsors of the Second
    Chance act did a poor job of examining the existing programs at OJP,
    and opted for more bureaucracy and a press release. Instead of
    utilizing existing Byrne Grants, R-SAT, re-entry and other programs at
    OJP, a new battery of programs was created. It seems as though a new
    grant program is created every day. What is the Department doing to
    examine the duplication of existing programs?
        Answer. The Department is aware that some programs can be
    duplicative of past or existing reentry initiatives; however, the
    Department, through the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), makes every
    effort to avoid duplicative efforts by developing solicitations and
    other funding opportunities, where permissible within the legislation,
    that stress creation and implementation of new, innovative, and
    evidenced based initiatives that have not been initiated through
    previous funding opportunities.
        Question. What is the Department doing to find out what does and
    doesn't work?
        Answer. It is critical that the Department support new and
    innovative approaches to addressing crime that are supported by
    evidence-based practices. At OJP we are following through on this
    commitment by working to re-establish the connection between research
    and practice, and giving the field the latest information about what
    works in the field of criminal and juvenile justice. This effort is one
    of our top priorities, and is helping to restore the integrity of
    science at the Department of Justice.
        We also believe research should be integrated into, not separate
    from, our programmatic activities. OJP has started a series of internal
    working groups to figure out how we can share information with the
    field about evidence-based approaches to fighting crime. In many cases,
    the knowledge is already out there in the field and it is our job to
    facilitate the horizontal transfer of that information and advance
    programs and practices that are supported by evidence of effectiveness.
    Through these working groups, we are coming up with a strategy for
    strengthening the evidence-based nature of our programs and working to
    build a more solid research foundation for the work that we do.
        In addition, meetings and monitoring visits are held with the
    grantees to ensure that they are providing effective and efficient
    programs through the various funding opportunities. OJP has emphasized
    that the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of
    Justice (NIJ) collaborate on the evaluation of new programs and
    initiatives. There is also an emphasis on creating meaningful and
    productive performance measures for recipients of funding.

                             DEA TITLE 21 AUTHORITY

        Question. What is your position on ICE receiving independent Title
    21 authority to investigate drug crimes, as opposed to the current
    practice of ICE relying on cross-designation by DEA?
        Answer. On June 18, 2009, DEA and ICE signed a new Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU) that updates the previous MOU from 1994. The new
    MOU continues the use of cross-designation of ICE agents, but removes
    any cap imposed upon the number of ICE agents that can receive cross-
    designation. Both Secretary Napolitano and I agree that this MOU is the
    most efficient and effective means to coordinate and deconflict drug
    enforcement investigations.
        Question. Would independent Title 21 authority for ICE cause any
    problems?
        Answer. Under the newly signed MOU, ICE will not require
    independent authority to conduct Title 21 drug investigations because
    ICE agents will be cross-designated with Title 21 authority, with no
    limitation on the number of ICE agents that may be cross-designated.
        Question. General Holder, will the new leadership for both ICE and
    DEA be able to resolve this or will it require a legislative fix?
        Answer. The recently signed MOU is the most efficient and effective
    way to address cross-designation concerns and to promote additional
    coordination. Because the issues between DEA and ICE have been resolved
    with this MOU, no legislative fix is required.
        Question. If the administration's new leadership can fix this what
    is your plan?
        Answer. I believe that with the signing of the MOU between ICE and
    DEA that any such issues related to cross-designation and coordination
    are resolved.
        Question. If ICE wants Title 21 to work narcotic cases why has ICE
    refused to participate at the OCDETF Fusion Center and EPIC? Why don't
    they play a larger role at SOD?
        Answer. Under the recently signed MOU between DEA and ICE, ICE
    commits to full participation, information sharing, and staffing at the
    OCDETF Fusion Center and SOD, and will provide seizure data to EPIC.
        Question. What intelligence do the two agencies share and how?
        Answer. DEA participates in a number of task forces and special
    initiatives with DHS agencies, including ICE, such as OCDETF, HIDTA,
    the CBP/DEA Ports Project, Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, and
    the Tunnel Task Force. These initiatives increase the flow of
    information between participating agencies regarding violent criminal
    organizations and gangs operating on both sides of the border.
        The information sharing and de-confliction processes and protocols
    established in the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), the OCDETF
    Fusion Center (OFC), and the Special Operations Division (SOD) have
    proven to be effective systems for multi-agency law enforcement
    intelligence sharing. With the recently signed MOU between DEA and ICE,
    ICE agrees to fully participate at OFC and SOD, both in terms of
    staffing and information sharing, and to provide seizure data to EPIC,
    which will greatly enhance the sharing of intelligence between DEA and
    ICE.
        Question. What is DEA's plan to resolve the issue?
        Answer. ICE commits to full participation, information sharing, and
    staffing at OFC and SOD and to provide seizure data to EPIC in the
    recently signed MOU.

                    LAW ENFORCEMENT WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS

        Question. President Obama recently announced his administration's
    comprehensive response to increased violence against Mexico fight
    against the drug cartels. How effective are the tactical radio
    communications between DOJ agents and other Federal agents such as
    Customs and Border Patrol along the Southwest border and do you need
    assistance from this subcommittee to fund tactical communications?
        Answer. The Department appreciates the support the Congress has
    shown the program in fiscal year 2009, and is pleased to share our
    plans for replacing and modernizing our aging radio systems, correcting
    security deficiencies, and addressing mandated technical standards that
    directly support agents along the border. DOJ's tactical radio systems
    should be updated where appropriate with systems which are more modern,
    more reliable and more secure. DOJ is working with other Federal law
    enforcement components to increase the effectiveness of tactical
    communications.
        Due to budgetary constraints, the typical ``technical refresh''
    investments necessary to maintain the reliable and secure operations of
    our radio systems have been postponed and/or delayed for 10-12 years.
    We have reached a point where certain aspects of our wireless systems
    are no longer supported by the original equipment vendors. Our largest
    user--the Drug Enforcement Administration--must often go to
    extraordinary lengths (Internet/eBay, cannibalization of older units,
    unreliable third party suppliers, etc.) to source replacement parts.
        Question. If this is a priority for DOJ why was LEWC not included
    in a 2009 supplement?
        Answer. We are working with the administration to develop funding
    strategies for the IWN program. The President's 2010 budget request
    would increase project funding to $205 million. These funding levels
    drastically increase our ability to invest in new wireless technology,
    reducing the costs for maintaining our legacy systems.
        Question. Follow up: The President's supplemental does not contain
    any funding for tactical communications for Federal law enforcement
    agents being deployed to the Southwest Border. If we are able to add
    funds to ensure that DOJ agents have secure digital communications
    along the SWB how quickly can DOJ respond to provide enhanced
    operational ability and security?
        Answer. The Department is prepared to immediately invest any
    additional funding to upgrade/modernize our radio systems serving the
    Southwest border. Such investments would have an immediate and
    significant impact in addressing the operational failures and security
    problems we currently face in the Southwest. Upgrade investments would
    be made in three major areas requiring attention:
      --Acquire and distribute new, modern radios (i.e., radio ``handsets''
            used by individuals and mobile radio systems typically
            installed in vehicles) for our law enforcement personnel along
            the Southwest border. This investment would immediately address
            many of the reliability and security problems our users
            currently encounter and we would expect to realize operational
            benefits within approximately 90 days of investment.
      --Begin to upgrade the system infrastructure that supports our
            tactical radios. This infrastructure includes
            telecommunications components, computers and servers, antenna
            towers, and related hardware. It will take approximately 9
            months to acquire, install, test, and transition the major
            components of this investment. Improvements in overall system
            performance and coverage would be realized immediately upon
            infrastructure upgrade.
      --Begin to develop and implement interoperability capabilities with
            other Federal radio systems, including CBP. Such investments
            would allow our users to more easily communicate with other
            Federal law enforcement personnel. We believe that
            interoperable capabilities can be significantly improved within
            approximately 9 months of investment.
        Question. Will the $350,000,000 provided to DOD for
    counternarcotics activities be available for DOJ to use to help upgrade
    its law enforcement wireless communications infrastructure along the
    Southwest border?
        Answer. The Law Enforcement Wireless Communications (LEWC) Program
    has no insight to the $350 million being provided to DOD for
    counternarcotics activities, so we are not familiar with how that money
    will be used. We assume this money will be obligated in a manner
    consistent with the scope and mission originally used by DOD to justify
    the funding--and to our knowledge DOJ's IWN radio system was not
    included in that justification. No discussions have been held by the
    LEWC program and DOD regarding the use of this funding.
        Question. With regard to your fiscal year 2010 request, it is my
    understanding that DOJ requested 300 million for LEWC in 2010 and it
    has been recommended that they receive 205 million.
        Answer. With the Committee's support of the IWN program in fiscal
    year 2009, the Department received a total of $185 million, which is
    $110 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The fiscal year
    2010 request is $205 million, a $20 million increase above fiscal year
    2009 that, if enacted, will allow for further IWN deployment.
        Question. What is the plan, the schedule for completing this
    project?
        Answer. Our current implementation schedule is to design and
    develop the IWN system over a 6 year period utilizing a series of
    overlapping implementation phases. The planned 6-year upgrade and
    replacement of legacy communications systems will include regional
    design and deployment of modernized tactical communications systems and
    services focusing on urban centers. The timeframe for completion is
    dependent on the availability of funding.
        Question. Are their plans for a 2010 supplement request to help
    accelerate this program?
        Answer. At this time there are no plans to request supplemental
    funds for this program in fiscal year 2010.

                     FBI--CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ABILITIES

        Question. Are you concerned over the apparent deterioration of the
    FBI's criminal investigative capabilities?
        Answer. The FBI has allocated its resources to ensure priorities
    are addressed in all its programs, including the criminal programs. We
    have established policies regarding resource allocation, we monitor
    resource use within each program to ensure that the most serious crime
    problems are addressed, and we ensure valid reasons exist for the
    diversion of resources from lower priority programs to higher
    priorities.
        Since the FBI reprioritized its mission following the terrorist
    attacks of 2001, some of the FBI's criminal program resources were
    redirected to combat the terrorism-related threats endangering our
    Nation. To alleviate any corresponding strain on other law enforcement
    agencies, the FBI has strengthened its focus and commitment to task
    force operations, which act as force multipliers. For example, the FBI
    operated approximately 50 Safe Streets Gang Task Forces before 9/11/01
    and is currently directing approximately 150 gang task forces across
    the country, consisting of approximately 650 FBI Special Agents and
    over 1,000 task force officers from other agencies. The FBI pays the
    overtime, vehicle, travel, and equipment related expenses for the
    assigned State and local agents. These task force operations maximize
    efficiency by promoting intimate collaboration and detailed information
    sharing between agencies.
        Question. Is this an area where we need to invest more agents and
    analysts?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 Departmental budget request to
    Congress includes a $62.6 million increase and a total of 379 positions
    (including 54 agents and 165 attorneys) to aggressively pursue mortgage
    fraud, corporate fraud, and other economic crimes. Included in this
    total are 143 positions (50 Agents) and $25.5 million for the FBI to
    combat the dramatic increase in mortgage fraud. These resources would
    enhance the FBI's field investigative capability, provide Forensic
    Accountants to aid in increasingly complex financial investigations and
    preparation of evidence for prosecution, and increase the number of
    Mortgage Fraud Task Forces.

                                 FBI FORENSICS

        Question. Mr. Attorney General, the National Academy of Science
    recently issued a draft report of its findings concerning forensic
    science--a report prepared at the request of Congress. Does the
    Department agree with the findings and recommendations of the report?
        Answer. The Department agrees with many of the recommendations of
    the National Academy of Science and fully supports initiatives to
    maximize: the quality and rigor of forensic analyses; the education and
    training of forensic practitioners; rigorous quality assurance programs
    to ensure the results and interpretations of forensic analyses, and the
    conclusions drawn from them, are accurate and within acceptable
    scientific boundaries; and the proper interpretation and use of
    forensic analysis results in criminal proceedings.
        The Department also agrees that additional research is needed to
    enhance the existing body of knowledge in the forensic sciences and to
    improve efficiency and effectiveness in forensic science laboratories
    through the development of new technologies and tools. For example, we
    agree that more research is needed in the areas of human observer bias
    and other sources of human error to minimize the possibility that these
    errors will affect forensic analysis, the interpretation of forensic
    results, and the accuracy and quality of courtroom testimony.
    Specifically, the Department supports: standardizing terminology across
    the forensic science community (Recommendation 2); more research on the
    accuracy, reliability, and validity of the forensic sciences
    (Recommendation 3); more research on human observer bias and sources of
    human error in the forensic sciences (Recommendation 5); the
    development of standards, practices, and protocols for use in forensic
    sciences (Recommendation 6); lab accreditation and practitioner
    certification (Recommendation 7); stronger quality assurance and
    control procedures (Recommendation 8); the establishment of a code of
    conduct, including ethical principles (Recommendation 9); higher
    education in the forensic sciences (Recommendation 10); the improvement
    of the medico legal death investigation system (Recommendation 11);
    Automated Fingerprint Identification System interoperability
    (Recommendation 12); and the use of forensic science to aid homeland
    security (Recommendation 13).
        The Department believes two of the recommendations need further
    study: the creation of a National Institute of Forensic Science to
    oversee the nation's entire forensic science community and the removal
    of all forensic science labs from the administrative control of law
    enforcement agencies or prosecutors' offices.
        Question. Based on the report, are there areas where you could
    suggest that the Committee could start to invest funding to address
    some of the problems identified?
        Answer. The Department believes in efforts to further forensic
    science research and validation efforts and to foster optimal quality
    assurance practices in all forensic science agencies. Thus, future
    investments in NAS recommendations 1 through 13 would be a step in the
    right direction to address some of the issues identified in the study.
        Question. Do you agree with the recommendation that forensic
    laboratories should be independent of police or law enforcement
    agencies?
        Answer. Although the Department supports the location of forensic
    science practitioners in laboratory settings managed and overseen by
    scientific personnel, we do not support the removal of public
    laboratories from the administrative control of law enforcement
    agencies.

                     PEER TO PEER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY GROUPS

        Question. Attorney General Holder: The internet and innovations in
    digital technology have in many ways made life easier and made the
    world a smaller place. Much like any legitimate tool or technology, the
    criminal element always finds a way to exploit theses innovations with
    their own criminal needs.
        Currently on the internet music, books, thoughts and ideas are
    shared through ``peer to peer'' networks. These networks allow a
    computer user to connect with thousands or hundreds of thousands of
    other computers around the world and share the contents of their
    collections which are maintained on their own computer hard drives.
    Like a person in Virginia could share his thoughts or ideas on a
    particular subject freely with a person in New Mexico. These networks
    are open and for anyone to participate.
        The vile and disgusting culture involved in the production and
    distribution of child pornography also take advantage of this
    technology. In these ``peer to peer'' groups Child pornographers are
    free to post, share and download horrible images of child rape and
    exploitation. These ``peer to peer'' networks are relatively easy to
    infiltrate by law enforcement and standard Investigative procedures
    allow for the subpoenaing and identification of the origin and
    person(s) involved in distributing the child pornography.
        The internet crimes against children, ICAC, task forces along with
    other State and local law enforcement agencies are charged with
    investigating these offenses. However, because often the person sharing
    the despicable child pornography is located outside the state of the
    original investigation great cost, time and effort are needed to have
    an Investigator travel to a foreign jurisdiction to provide evidence
    and testimony to obtain a conviction.
        These ``peer to peer'' groups are relatively easy to investigate
    and these cases are ripe for picking.
        Answer. The Department of Justice is deeply committed to the fight
    against child exploitation, including the production and trade of child
    pornography. Today's technology knows no borders, so it is the rule,
    rather than the exception, for an investigation to uncover targets in
    numerous States and countries. In response to this reality, as part of
    Project Safe Childhood, the Department's Child Exploitation and
    Obscenity Section (CEOS) works with law enforcement partners, including
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE), and the Postal Inspection Service, to develop
    national and international operations which generate hundreds or even
    thousands of leads which are then disseminated to law enforcement
    agencies and United States Attorney's Offices in the appropriate
    geographic areas. CEOS also assists in the prosecution of offenders
    identified through these operations. These large-scale national and
    transnational operations leverage limited enforcement resources to
    identify high-value targets and large numbers of offenders.
        While peer-to-peer technology certainly can be used for nefarious
    purposes, it is only one of several methods of trading child
    pornography on a mass scale over the Internet. Our experience shows
    that these opportunistic offenders do not limit themselves to any
    particular technology, so our law enforcement response must be equally
    broad. For example, a Philadelphia man who had two prior convictions
    for molesting children was recently convicted in the Eastern District
    of Pennsylvania of advertising child pornography through an online
    bulletin board that he created and administered. As another example,
    fourteen individual defendants were recently convicted in the Northern
    District of Florida, seven through plea agreements and seven at trial,
    of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise. The members of the
    international illegal organization used Internet newsgroups to traffic
    in illegal images and videos depicting prepubescent children, including
    toddlers, engaged in various sexual and sadistic acts. The group, which
    included convicted sex offenders, traded over 400,000 images of
    children being sexually abused. While we are constantly trying to adapt
    to technological changes as they come--and they come quickly--we also
    note that these offenders often use traditional methods of trading
    these illegal images, such as the mail. For example, an Arizona man who
    had been identified through an undercover operation recently pled
    guilty to receiving child pornography he had ordered through the mail.
        To be sure, peer-to-peer networks offer a fertile environment for
    law enforcement action--and the Department for years has successfully
    targeted offenders using that technological platform. For its part, the
    FBI developed its first peer-to-peer operation in 2003, and later
    developed the eP2P tool in response to the use of these networks by
    child exploiters. FBI and ICE both continue to run operations to
    dismantle peer-to-peer networks, along with the work done by the
    Internet Crimes Against Children taskforces (ICACs), which have become
    very proficient in investigating these types of cases. Federal
    investigators and State and Local law enforcement agencies who
    participate on ICAC Task Forces use tools such as eP2P and Operation
    Fairplay to address peer-to-peer file sharing. In 2008, ICACs
    investigated almost 13,000 child pornography distribution cases and
    almost 10,000 child pornography possession complaints. Many of these
    cases stemmed from peer to peer investigations or from Cyber tips
    reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
    Federal prosecutions of all child pornography offenders has increased
    in each of the last 10 years, including over 2,200 indictments filed in
    fiscal year 2008.
        Rather than emphasizing the investigation of one technology over
    another, the Department of Justice instead employs a comprehensive
    approach that includes an effort to identify peer-to-peer users, but it
    is not focused exclusively on it. In responding to the scourge of child
    exploitation, our goal through the enforcement of Federal laws is not
    to replicate the efforts of our State and local partners, but to
    complement it. This involves the identification of new technologies
    used by offenders, finding solutions to technical hurdles, and
    otherwise ensuring that we are pursuing the high-value targets wherever
    they are operating. On the last point, this often means targeting
    organized international and national networks of offenders.
        Operation Joint Hammer, announced by the Department in December of
    2008, is one such example. In that case, European law enforcement
    notified the United States of commercial website run by an Italian that
    was selling subscriptions to its members that allowed them to access
    ``fresh'' images of child pornography. The U.S. received hundreds of
    leads of persons in the United States who had paid subscriptions to
    that site. The many leads were divided among the FBI, Postal Inspection
    Service and ICE, and all three Federal agencies worked in close
    association with the Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity
    Section to investigate the leads and prosecute the offenders. By the
    end of 2008, the Operation had resulted in over 60 arrests in the
    United States. The investigation continues.

                           COMPUTER DIGITAL FORENSICS

        Question. Not since the advent of finger print evidence and later
    DNA evidence has a field of forensic sciences been so impactful in the
    area of criminal investigation as that of computer digital forensics.
        Every criminal case potentially has digital evidence within it.
    Drug deals are set up via text messaging. Murder conspirators
    communicate by way of email messages. Cell phone tracking assists in
    the location of missing or abducted persons. Massive white collar fraud
    cases are cracked due to in house email between defendants.
        State and local law enforcement around this country are not
    financially equipped nor trained effectively to investigate and
    prosecute these cases.
        Federal law enforcement agencies.
        The United States is in desperate need of training the many areas
    of cybercrime for State and local law enforcement agents, prosecutors
    and trial judges who handle over 90 percent of these cases.
        Attorney General Holder, in Alabama we have taken a major step
    forward in this area.
        Answer. More and more crimes today involve the use of digital
    devices, including terrorism, murder, child exploitation, identity
    theft, and fraud. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts
    find themselves challenged to deal with the resulting volume of digital
    evidence.
        The Department's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is aggressively
    responding to this challenge, both with regard to providing training
    and resources and in the development of new and improved digital
    investigative and forensic tools. OJP's response is being undertaken in
    partnership with State and local practitioners.
        The Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA's) Electronic and Cyber
    Crime Training and Technical Assistance Program is designed to improve
    the capacity of local criminal justice systems and provide national
    support for training and technical assistance projects that
    strategically address electronic and cyber crime needs.
        The National Institute of Justice's (NIJ's) Electronic Crime
    Program is designed to improve the capability of State and local
    criminal justice agencies to acquire and process digital evidence
    effectively and efficiently. NIJ's investments in the area of
    Electronic Crime are advised by a State and local practitioner-based
    Technology Working Group to ensure it addresses the most pressing needs
    of the community. Activities sponsored under this program include:
      --Development of improved means to conduct digital forensic
            examinations of mobile devices such as cell phones as well as
            other digital devices
      --Provision of resources to speed the process and efficiency of
            digital forensic examinations such as National Software
            Reference Library (NSRL) and the Computer Tool Forensic Testing
            Program (CFTT)
      --Publication of guides such as: ``Digital Evidence in the Courtroom:
            A guide for Law Enforcement and Prosecutors'' and ``Forensic
            Examination of Digital Evidence: A guide for Law Enforcement''
        OJP remains committed to this effort. In fact, since 2006, BJA and
    NIJ have provided over $2 million in grant funding to support the
    Alabama District Attorney's Association's (ADAA's) efforts to meet the
    challenge of dealing with digital forensic evidence including the
    Alabama Computer Forensic Program, which, in partnership with the
    Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service, created
    NCFI. The support the ADAA provides Alabama criminal justice agencies
    in this regard goes well beyond training, to include investigative
    support, prosecutorial support, and computer forensic analysis support.
    Although their efforts are focused on the needs of the State of
    Alabama, their model could well inform similar efforts by other States,
    or compacts among States.

                                METHAMPHETAMINE

        Question. In recent years many States enacted legislation that
    curtailed the access to ephedrine which is a key or vital component in
    the manufacture of crystal methamphetamine. This legislation caused a
    marked decrease in the number of meth lab seizures around the country.
    An unintended consequence of this legislation led to an increase in the
    amount of crystal methamphetamine being manufactured and imported from
    Mexico. These super labs and drug cartels have been responsible for
    much of the gang and drug violence perpetrated on our border and around
    our country. However, due to recent changes in the manufacturing
    process of meth, the amount of domestic laboratory discoveries is sky
    rocketing. This new method of cooking methamphetamine is commonly
    referred to as a ``one pot'' cook or a ``shake and bake'' cook. Early
    manufacturing methods required several stages in the manufacturing
    process. These stages might involve ingredients such as ephedrine,
    anhydrous ammonia, lithium from lithium batteries, camp fuel, ether,
    salts, drain cleaner, and other dangerous ingredients or processes.
    With this new method of a ``one pot'' cook there are no separate stages
    in the cooking process. All of the dangerous, volatile ingredients are
    combined into one container. These containers are like sticks of
    dynamite, and, once the cook has been completed, the containers are
    discarded as trash. Recently in my State of Alabama a young child
    unsuspectingly picked up a soft drink bottle and attempted to consume
    what she thought was a soft drink. It was in fact ether, acid and the
    remnants of a ``one pot'' meth cook. She received life threatening
    injuries due to this encounter.
        State and local law enforcement around the country are seeing
    greater levels of meth lab seizures than they were prior to the
    ephedrine legislation that sought to reduce the number of meth labs. In
    one jurisdiction within my State of Alabama, a local drug unit seized
    nearly 50 ``one pot'' meth labs in a single residence. Attorney General
    Holder, my question to you is: What are you and the Department of
    Justice doing to assist and train State and local law enforcement and
    prosecutors to deal with not only the influx of imported meth and its
    associated violence, but also the dramatic increase in the amount of
    local methamphetamine manufacturing, distribution and meth lab
    seizures?
        Answer. Drug and lab seizure data has historically suggested that
    roughly 80 percent of the methamphetamine used in the United States
    comes from larger labs operated by Mexican organizations that are on
    both sides of the border, with the remaining 20 percent coming from
    domestically operated Small Toxic Labs. The Department is working with
    other Federal, State, and local law enforcement counterparts to address
    both sources. More specific examples of the work undertaken by DEA and
    COPS in this area are highlighted below.
      --DEA's Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs) prioritize deployments
            focusing on methamphetamine trafficking, which is often
            conducted by violent Mexican cartels and gangs. In fiscal year
            2009, DEA has 14 METs.
      --DEA continues to collaborate with its Mexican counterparts as well
            as Customs and Border Protection. Projects such as the Long
            Beach Ports Project, which target suspicious containerized
            cargo, Operation All Inclusive, and Operation Ice Block, are
            all designed to stem the flow of precursor chemicals from
            reaching clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.
      --DEA assists State and local law enforcement by providing hazardous
            waste contractor cleanup services and other assistance funded
            by the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. In
            fiscal year 2008, DEA administered 3,750 State and local
            clandestine laboratory cleanups. Based on current data, DEA
            expects to administer 5,600 State and local clandestine
            laboratory cleanups in fiscal year 2009, a 49 percent increase
            from the previous fiscal year.
      --DEA is working to expand the Hazardous Waste Container Program,
            which reduces overall cleanup costs. The Container Program
            allows law enforcement officers to transport properly packaged
            hazardous waste from clandestine laboratory sites to secure
            containers until a DEA contractor picks it up within seven
            days. At the end of fiscal year 2008, Kentucky, Alabama,
            Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, and Oklahoma were participating in
            the program. DEA Clan Lab Coordinators are also working with
            Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, and Michigan on the feasibility
            of these States joining the program. During fiscal year 2008,
            the container programs have resulted in cost savings of
            approximately $4 million.
      --DEA trains Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement
            professionals on clandestine lab enforcement operations,
            including basic certification, officer safety and tactical
            training. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2008, DEA
            provided clandestine lab training to nearly 9,000 State and
            local law enforcement officers and plans to train 950 each year
            in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010. Funding for these
            activities is provided by COPS.
      --In addition to its support for DEA activities, COPS funding also
            supports enforcement, training, and prevention nationwide,
            concentrating in areas having the greatest need for assistance
            in combating methamphetamine production, distribution, and use.
            COPS encourages agencies to focus on community policing
            approaches to methamphetamine reduction, and also works
            directly with State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies
            to craft innovative strategies, track and evaluate their
            implementation, and disseminate results to other jurisdictions
            confronting similar challenges.

                              AGENT CERTIFICATIONS

        Question. Because of Federal EPA regulations a meth lab cannot be
    legally seized or disposed of unless the law enforcement agent
    conducting the seizure has DEA Federal certifications. The waiting list
    to obtain these certifications and the costs associated are an
    impediment to many local law enforcement agencies being able to
    effectively investigate, seize and prosecute these cases. How will you
    and the Department of Justice see that the training and certification
    of these State and local law enforcement officers is expedited and made
    cost effective?
        Answer. DEA trains Federal, State, local, and tribal law
    enforcement professionals on clandestine lab enforcement operations,
    including basic certification, officer safety, and tactical training.
    Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2008, DEA provided clandestine
    lab training to nearly 9,000 State and local law enforcement officers
    and plans to train 950 each year in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
    2010. In December 2008, DEA opened a new clandestine lab training
    facility at the DEA Academy in Quantico, VA. DEA will use this state-
    of-the-art facility to train Federal, State, local, and foreign law
    enforcement officers in meth lab techniques and how to safely enter and
    dismantle them. DEA's State and local clandestine lab training programs
    are currently funded with COPS funding provided to DEA for assistance
    to State and local law enforcement.

                            TRAINING OF PROSECUTORS

        Question. Mr. Attorney General, 95 percent of all criminal cases
    and 98 percent of all violent crime are prosecuted by our Nation's
    State and local prosecutors. However, when funding is set aside by the
    department to train prosecutors, State and local prosecutors often get
    the short end of the stick. Currently, The Hollings National Advocacy
    Center in Columbia, South Carolina is a prime example of the disparity
    between Federal and State and local prosecutors. The Federal training
    at the NAC has been well funded since its inception, however, the State
    and local program, conducted in partnership with the National District
    Attorneys Association, has struggled to provide its much needed
    programs to the Nation's 39,000 State and local prosecutors due to lack
    of funding. If we are asking State and local prosecutors to carry the
    vast majority of the burden of criminal prosecutions, what will the
    Justice Department do to ensure the guilty are brought to justice and
    the innocent protected by well-trained prosecutors?
        Answer. We value the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA)
    as a strong partner and have collaborated with NDAA on a number of
    issues including violent crime, crimes against children, capital
    litigation improvement, and motor vehicle theft. Beginning in fiscal
    year 2010, the National District Attorneys Association may apply, and
    compete, for discretionary grant funding to fund expansion of the
    current curriculum at the National Advocacy Center to provide more
    training for State and local prosecutors.

                         STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM

        Question. State and local prosecutors and public defenders offices
    struggle with budgets as much, if not more as any governmental agency,
    these tight budgets make it difficult to compete against private law
    firms when recruiting and attempting to retain attorneys. Today, over
    80 percent of law school graduates enter the workforce with student
    loans that on average exceed $50,000. While many young people would
    truly like to serve their community, the sheer economics of a
    tremendous level of debt often eliminates that as an option. The Nation
    has an obligation to ensure the criminal justice system operates at the
    highest level possible. This is increasingly difficult with
    understaffed and overworked prosecutors and public defenders offices,
    which are constantly losing staff to the private sector. In part to
    address the wage disparity between the public and private sector,
    Congress passed and the President signed the John R. Justice
    Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2008 in August. The Act
    authorizes the Justice Department to develop a student loan repayment
    program that mirrors a program already in place at the department for
    U.S. Attorney's Offices. What progress has the Department made in
    putting this program in place?
        Answer. The Department understands and appreciates the essential
    work performed by State and local prosecutors and public defenders in
    handling the large volume of cases in State court systems in this
    country. In recognition of that, through the Office of Justice
    Programs, the Department administers a number of targeted efforts to
    support the work of these attorneys in areas ranging from gun crime to
    drug cases, child abuse and neglect, and DNA evidence. In light of many
    competing priorities, however, the Department did not seek
    appropriations for student loan repayment under the John R. Justice
    Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
    Department of Justice leadership met recently, however, with the
    Executive Director and the President of the National District Attorneys
    Association and discussed the Act and the needs that led to its
    passage. With recognition of the important work of State and local
    prosecutors and public defenders, the Department will continue to
    consider this matter.

                                   NAS STUDY

        Question. The recent NAS study on Forensic Sciences raises a number
    of concerns for this subcommittee. Probably most importantly is that
    the NAS failed to follow the legislative language requesting the study.
    That being said the study is not without value and there are some
    recommendations in the study that are worth consideration and have the
    broad support of stakeholders. However, there are two proposals I find
    particularly troubling: the establishment of an independent forensics
    agency and the removal of all forensics labs from within law
    enforcement agencies. These proposals, to me, seem extremely expensive,
    ill advised, and frankly unworkable. Have you or your staff considered
    the implications of this recommendation and which agency in your
    department would be cut to cover the costs?
        Answer. The Department welcomes the report of the National Research
    Council entitled, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States:
    A Path Forward. The report is a helpful addition to the public
    discourse on the state of the forensic science community, and it
    recommends many useful steps to strengthen the community and enable it
    to continue to contribute to an effective criminal justice system. In
    fact, many of these steps are familiar to those in the forensic science
    community, including DOJ, and have been discussed among practitioners
    for some time. In large part, it builds on previous reviews conducted
    under DOJ's auspices in 1999 and 2004 that similarly identified
    numerous areas for improvement.
        DOJ supports most of the recommendations. Many of them are directed
    toward state and local forensic entities, which is to be expected as
    around 98 percent of forensic science is performed outside the Federal
    Government. However, the Federal Government has a crucial leadership
    role to play in support of our criminal justice stakeholders and
    constituents. The Federal Government is already engaged in activities
    along the lines of many of the recommendations, but the Department
    recognizes that a significant new effort is required to appropriately
    address the issues raised by the community and in the report.
        There are two recommendations that need further study: the creation
    of a National Institute of Forensic Sciences (NIFS) ``support and
    oversee the forensic science disciplines'' nationwide and the removal
    of all forensic science labs from administrative control of law
    enforcement agencies or prosecutors' offices. The report is correct in
    observing that, currently, the Nation's forensic science community is
    somewhat fragmented given the sheer number of independent law
    enforcement agencies, prosecutorial units, and crime laboratories.
    However, there is important work in progress to unify the community
    from within, as national organizations such as the American Society of
    Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)
    and the Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) are working to standardize
    quality control and implement uniform standards. It is not clear that a
    new organization is necessary to achieve implementation of most of the
    report's recommendations. In fact, it could detract from this effort by
    refocusing energies and resources toward bureaucracy-building rather
    than substantive improvement in the field. A decision to establish a
    NIFS must be made carefully, and only after a thorough assessment of
    the strengths and weaknesses of both the concept and its proposed
    implementation.
        Along those lines, DOJ also questions whether full independence of
    laboratories from law enforcement is advisable or feasible. The report
    cites an inherent potential for conflict of interest in the operational
    function of the majority of forensic service providers as they
    currently exist. The concept of ``independence'' that the report raises
    is not new to the law enforcement or forensic science community. In
    fact, States such as Arizona and Virginia have moved in this direction.
    However, it should not be surmised that this model can or should be
    adopted Nation-wide because there is inherent value to a collaborative
    process among forensic practitioners and law enforcement in determining
    the best course of action as it relates to the analysis of forensic
    evidence. To be separated completely from interaction with
    investigative partners might well cause missteps in decision-making
    that could result in either loss and/or destruction of evidence, or
    important analyses left undone. Instead, we agree with language in the
    report stating that autonomy within law enforcement entities should be
    the goal. In fact, accredited laboratories have management requirements
    to ensure independence of their scientific work.
        The publication of Strengthening Forensic Science in the United
    States: A Path Forward provides a renewed opportunity for the forensic
    science community, the Executive Branch, Congress, and the public to
    focus on ways to improve the use of forensic science. While we have no
    plans to eliminate any DOJ agency as a result of the recommendations
    made in the NAS report, we look forward to working with Congress to
    develop and refine a comprehensive approach to address the serious
    issues raised by the report.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. So we have got a lot to do together, and
    we want to work with you to recapitalize and rebuild the
    Department of Justice so we can render justice in our country
    and have our national honor restored abroad. So we are looking
    forward to working with you and your very able staff.
        This subcommittee stands in recess until Thursday, May 21
    at 10 a.m., when we will take testimony from the Acting
    Administrator from NASA.
        The subcommittee is in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., Thursday, May 7, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday,
    May 21.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 11:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Nelson, Shelby, and Voinovich.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE, ACTING
                ADMINISTRATOR

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, and welcome to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science. I'd like to
    welcome Mr. Scolese from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
    in my State.
        We have heard testimony from several Presidents'
    administrations, we've had Nobel Prize winners, and now we're
    actually going to have astronauts in space. As I understand it,
    it is the very first time that we will receive testimony from
    space.
        One could make jokes about it, and maybe we've heard it
    before when it's been coming from outer space, but today it
    will be the real deal.
        As we prepare for that, know that I've also asked one of
    our colleagues who is an astronaut Senator Bill Nelson, to join
    us for that part of the hearing. The Senate is a wonderful
    institution, we've actually had three astronaut Senators--John
    Glenn, Jake Garn, and Bill Nelson.
        And one today which, really, with the Hubble, Senator
    Shelby and I have been together on the Hubble for 19 years, as
    was Senator Kit Bond.
        I really want to pay tribute to both Senator Glenn--when I
    took over this subcommittee so many years ago he was a learned
    counselor and adviser to help me really understand the breadth
    and depth of the American Space Program.
        I also want to pay tribute to Senator Jake Garn, who was my
    ranking member in those days and on a bipartisan basis we
    worked together to do many sound things to achieve a balanced
    space program. And Senator Garn brought a measure of great
    civility and an enormous knowledge, and I feel that I was able
    to launch my career in trying to help the American Space
    Program because of the excellent guidance and tutelage, those
    two space astronaut Senators gave me.
        So, with that, I also, want to welcome Chris Scolese to the
    hearing. He's no stranger to us, he's served as NASA's Chief
    Engineer since 2007, and was the Deputy Director of the Goddard
    Space Flight Center.
        I want to thank Administrator Scolese for steering the NASA
    ship during this time of transition. It has indeed been in
    competent hands, and I want to thank you for your fidelity, for
    your competence, and for your stewardship. It exactly shows why
    we need a civil service, and why we need a NASA civil service.
    You truly have been part of that senior executive corps,
    providing hands-on leadership, as well as motivation of his
    staff, as we go through very difficult times.
        So, I really want to thank you, and I think, you know, I
    want to just give you a little round of applause. I'm sorry
    more colleagues are not here, they'll be here for the more
    glitzy part of it, but we think you're glitzy, too.
        Later on in the hearing, as I said, we're going to talk to
    7 of our very daring and courageous astronauts from Space
    Shuttle Atlantis.
        But let us get right to the heart of why we're here, which
    is the NASA 2010 budget request. It's for $18.7 billion--$1
    billion above the omnibus level--and also, NASA has received $1
    billion in the American recovery stimulus package. So, between
    the 2010 budget request, the Recovery Act, NASA will receive $2
    billion more than they have in the past. This is a real
    victory.
        Unfortunately, these gains don't continue into the future,
    and this is where we're deeply troubled. We're concerned that
    NASA is flat-lined after 2010.
        But there's promising news within the 2010 budget, as well.
    We're heartened that science is funded at $4.5 billion, with
    greater investments in Earth science as we study our own
    planet, and look to distant stars.
        We also note that in other areas of science, the budget
    totals of $4.5 billion, and NASA is being guided by the decadal
    reports prepared by the National Academy of Science. These are
    roadmaps for us, and we believe science at NASA saves lives,
    saves the planet, and creates jobs for the future. We're very
    heartened that we will continue to look at green science as we
    look at Planet Earth, but at the same time, to do other forms
    of science, related to planetary science, as well as solar
    science. And we're going to continue our mission development in
    telescopes, like the James Webb telescope.
        In aeronautics research, the budget request is for $507
    million, roughly the equivalent of the 2009 omnibus level. This
    is disappointing. The aeronautics budget in 1998 was $1.5
    billion, 10 years ago, aeronautics was one of the keystones of
    the NASA budget. We've got to get back to this, because we
    believe that in order to maintain U.S. leadership in
    aeronautics, we need to make those public investments in
    development of technologies that increase our competitive edge
    in aircraft and airspace for safer, better, faster
    transportation.
        The budget also reflects money for the Space Shuttle, and
    the space station, $3.2 billion for the Space Shuttle, $2.3
    billion for the space station.
        The budget calls for eight more flights to the space
    station, and we'll be discussing this in a very active way with
    the acting administrator. Eight more flights before the end of
    the fiscal year 2010.
        We know the administration is committed to these remaining
    flights, and we know that delays that can occur in the Shuttle
    schedule, and we're concerned that there's no funding in the
    budget to keep a transition going.
        As we retire the Shuttle, and we must do it with honor, we
    also have to acknowledge the wonderful workforce that has kept
    the Shuttle flying all of these years. And that this
    transitioning of the workforce is a major challenge for NASA,
    for the administration, and quite frankly for the Congress to
    work on a bipartisan basis with us.
        The United States can't afford to lose this talent. Our
    talent in science and engineering continues to be needed, so we
    need to really take a fresh, creative way of looking at this
    workforce.
        As our courageous astronauts perform amazing feats, we also
    need to know that with that Space Shuttle, safety has to be our
    number one concern, our number one priority that is a--
    absolutely needs to ensure. We need to ensure their safety, no
    matter what.
        Now, this budget is a down payment on a balanced space
    program. Some years ago, a man by the name of Norm Augustine
    chaired a White House Commission for the President--a
    Republican President, I might add--and we've followed that for
    years, that we would have a commitment to human space
    exploration, a reliable and safe space transportation system
    and that we would do science, and we would do aeronautics.
        Well, here we are again, where we're asking Norm Augustine
    to chair a Commission in terms of human flight. We look forward
    to the way that the Augustine review will take place, and
    hopefully it will help us, guide us on this.
        Let me conclude, though, by saying we're deeply troubled by
    the cost overruns at NASA. Since 2006, 10 of the 12 NASA
    projects in development have exceeded baseline cost in
    schedules. This has cost credibility with NASA and the
    Congress. So, whenever they want to do something new that's
    dazzling, that's important to either our economics or to
    science, or to exploration, we wonder what we're getting into.
    And what we think we're getting into either doubles or triples
    or so on. And there is a growing concern among our colleagues
    that because of flawed estimates that there is a reluctance to
    begin what we need to do.
        I believe we need to tackle this, and we're going to look
    for your ideas on how to do that.
        But I want to conclude by saying this is a very special
    year in NASA's space history. It's the 50th anniversary of when
    NASA was created. It's the 40th anniversary, this July--July
    20--of when we landed on the Moon. It's the 25th anniversary of
    when Dr. Sally Ride was the first woman to go into space, and
    of course, the beloved, and cherished Hubble Telescope, the
    people's telescope, is celebrating its 19th year in space, and
    like a lot of us, it's had ups and downs and needed a lot of
    help.
        So, we look forward to hearing from you, we think the
    President has done a good job in making recommendations in this
    budget, but we think there's more work to be done.
        Now I'd like to turn to my ranking member, Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Mr. Scolese, thank you for joining us today, and thank you
    for the work that you've done over the years at NASA.
        This is a sizable sum with our budget, considering the
    funding constraints that the Federal Government faces. This is
    a $903 million, or 5.1 percent increase over the 2009 funding
    level.
        This would provide--but it doesn't begin to provide enough
    for NASA to do all of the critical missions it has been asked
    to do.
        The proposed budget has welcome increases in the areas of
    science and exploration, and maintains aeronautics funding at
    an acceptable level. However, more than 21 percent of NASA's
    budget, nearly $4 billion, is being set aside as a placeholder,
    while NASA turns its manned space program over to, what will
    hopefully be an independent, and unconstrained blue-ribbon
    panel.
        While there are a few developments at NASA to be excited
    about, there are even more that are troubling.
        For starters, we are just now receiving a budget proposal
    from the administration that claimed it was able to hit the
    ground running, and was ready to lead.
        With the nominee for the Administrator's post that was
    barely announced less than a week ago, the administration, I
    believe, has chosen to let their budget proposal be the face of
    NASA until a successful nominee is confirmed, in order to
    shepherd this Nation's space priorities through Congress.
        In the case of the future for human space flight in some
    lunar science missions, the administration has made Norm
    Augustine that Chairwoman Mikulski referenced, the de facto
    interim Administrator, further delaying any plan for over $4
    billion of NASA's budget until weeks before the start of the
    fiscal year.
        Such timing will not allow for NASA to potentially re-plan
    a major component of their budget, or for Congress to review
    the inclusion of this funding in fiscal year 2010.
        Rather than rush such a monumental decision, any suggested
    changes should inform the development of the 2011 budget, once
    the ramifications of the recommendations can be fully vetted
    and authorized by Congress.
        The proposed budget--while addressing issues of climate
    change, unmanned exploration and aeronautics research--
    shortchanges, I believe, our most viable and visible and
    inspiring manned space flight program. Instead of providing
    Constellation with funds to move forward, it is delaying the
    current mission, while seeking to have a do-over on plans that
    have been authorized by both a Republican and Democratic
    Congress.
        I believe it should be remembered that, while the Hubble
    Telescope has brought us amazing images, and deepened our
    understanding of the universe, this marvelous instrument would
    still be on the ground, without our manned space program.
        It is our distinct pleasure today to be able to talk to the
    crew--as Chairwoman Mikulski said--of the Atlantis, as they
    return to Earth from a successful mission. They will be the
    last, I believe, of Americans to travel farther away from the
    Earth than the Space Station for years to come.
        I believe that manned space flight is something that is
    still in the realm of Government, because despite their best
    efforts, some truly private enterprises have not been able to
    deliver on plans of launching vehicles.
        SpaceX claimed that they would be launched by 2004, and had
    a grandiose vision of manned flights launching by early this
    year. Unfortunately, the reality is that out of four attempts,
    they've only delivered a single dummy payload to space, have
    never delivered any payload to the Space Station, much less a
    human.
        However grandiose the claims of proponents for commercial
    orbital transportation services, part D, they cannot substitute
    for the painful truth of failed performance, at present. For
    all of the hype, and the hundreds of millions in taxpayer
    dollars invested in cargo-only delivery, we still await the
    first successful completion of a single mission that delivers a
    real payload, not a simulated dummy.
        I ask--is this the hope we will hitch our dreams of the
    future of manned space flight to? Will unproven cargo
    capabilities close the manned space flight gap faster than the
    work NASA has done on Ares and Orion? Are we to entertain the
    idea of placing people on a rocket that has yet to deliver a
    single real payload of any kind into space? I would have
    trouble, Madam Chairwoman, supporting a budget that is poised
    to eliminate a real manned space program, and instead maintains
    the fantasy of one.
        This course, I believe, will only extend the time we will
    have to rely on the Russians to get our astronauts to a space
    station for which we have invested billions of dollars.
        Without truly supporting and building upon the human and
    heavy-lift launch capabilities that are already under
    development, our astronauts will have no choice but to wave at
    the Russians, perhaps the Chinese, and possibly astronauts from
    India and other countries, as they pass by the Space Station on
    their way to exploring space.
        As our astronauts endlessly circle the Earth in the future,
    astronauts from other nations, perhaps, will be exploring well
    beyond the edges of Earth's atmosphere and will become the
    inspiration of America's children. Is that what we want? I hope
    not.
        We may be the leader in manned space flight today, but the
    eventual ramifications of this budget, as I understand it, has
    the potential to ensure that this lead will end, perhaps
    forever.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I look forward to hearing from you today, but the reality
    is that rocket science is tough, it is not a cheap venture, and
    it is not without risk. As a former NASA Administrator recently
    said, and I'll quote, ``A fictional space program will always
    be faster, better, and cheaper than a real space program, but
    it won't be one.''
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby

        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Scolese, thank you for joining us
    today to discuss the fiscal year 2010 budget proposal for the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA's proposed budget is
    $18.7 billion. This is a $903 million, or 5.1 percent, increase over
    the fiscal year 2009 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.
    The proposed budget has welcomed increases in the areas of science and
    exploration, and maintains aeronautics funding at an acceptable level.
    However, more than 21 percent of NASA's budget, nearly $4 billion, is
    being set aside as a placeholder while NASA turns its manned space
    program over to what will hopefully be an independent and un-
    constrained blue ribbon panel.
        While there are a few developments at NASA to be excited about,
    there are even more that are troubling. For starters, we are just now
    receiving a budget proposal from an administration that claimed it was
    able to hit the ground running and was ready to lead. Without even a
    nominee for Administrator, this administration has chosen to let their
    budget proposal be the face of NASA until a successful nominee is
    confirmed in order to shepherd the Nation's space priorities through
    Congress.
        In the case of the future for human space flight and some lunar
    science missions, the Administration has made Norm Augustine the de
    facto interim administrator, further delaying any plan for over $4
    billion of NASA's budget until weeks before the start of the fiscal
    year. Such timing will not allow for NASA to potentially re-plan a
    major component of their budget, or for Congress to review for
    inclusion this funding in fiscal year 2010. Rather than rush such a
    monumental decision, any suggested changes should inform the
    development of the 2011 budget once the ramifications of the
    recommendations can be fully vetted and authorized by Congress.
        The proposed budget, while addressing issues of climate change, un-
    manned exploration, and aeronautics research, shortchanges our most
    visible and inspiring space program, manned space flight. Instead of
    providing Constellation with funds to move forward, it is delaying the
    current mission while seeking to have a do-over on plans that have been
    authorized by both a Republican and Democratic Congress.
        It should be remembered that while the Hubble telescope has brought
    us amazing images and deepened our understanding of the universe, this
    marvelous instrument would still be on the ground without our manned
    space program. It is our distinct pleasure today to be able to talk
    with the crew of Atlantis as they return to Earth from a successful
    mission. They will be the last Americans to travel farther away from
    Earth than the space station for years to come.
        I believe that manned space flight is something that is still in
    the realm of government because, despite their best efforts, some truly
    private enterprises have not been able to deliver on plans of launching
    vehicles. Space-X claimed that they would be launching by 2004 and had
    grandiose visions of manned flights launching by early this year.
    Unfortunately the reality is that out of four attempts, they have only
    delivered a single dummy payload to space, have never delivered any
    payload to the space station, much less a human. However grandiose the
    claims of proponents for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
    part D (COTS-D) are, they cannot substitute for the painful truth of
    failed performance at present.
        For all the hype and the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars
    invested in cargo only delivery, we still await the first successful
    completion of a single mission that delivers a real payload, not a
    simulated dummy.
        I ask, is this the hope we will hitch our dreams of the future of
    manned space flight? Will these unproven cargo capabilities close the
    manned spaceflight gap faster than the work NASA has done on Ares and
    Orion? Are we to entertain the idea of placing people on a rocket that
    has yet to deliver a single, real, payload of any kind to space?
        I would have trouble supporting a budget that is poised to
    eliminate a real manned space program and instead maintains the fantasy
    of one. This course will only extend the time we will have to rely on
    the Russians to get our astronauts to a space station for which we have
    invested billions.
        Without truly supporting, and building upon the human and heavy
    lift launch capabilities that are already under development, our
    astronauts will have no choice but to wave at the Russians, the
    Chinese, and possibly astronauts from India, as they pass by the space
    station on their way to exploring space. As our astronauts endlessly
    circle the Earth, the astronauts of other nations will explore well
    beyond the edges of Earth's atmosphere and will become the inspiration
    of America's children. We may be the leader in manned space flight
    today, but the eventual ramification of this budget has the potential
    to ensure that this lead will end forever.
        The reality is that rocket science is hard. It is not a cheap
    venture, and it is not without risk. As the former NASA Administrator
    recently said, ``a fictional space program will always be faster,
    better, and cheaper than a real space program.''
        I look forward to working with NASA and the Administrator, once one
    is nominated and confirmed, to move the real space program at NASA and
    its exploration goals forward in the next fiscal year.
        Thank you.

        Senator Mikulski. Senator Voinovich, are you prepared to
    stay for the hearing, so we could go to Scolese?
        Senator Voinovich. I am, but I have a short statement.
        Senator Mikulski. Would you like to make it?
        Senator Voinovich. Yes, I would.
        Senator Mikulski. Sure.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for having this
    hearing, and it's my first opportunity to be on this
    subcommittee, and Mr. Scolese, thank you for your participation
    here.
        I want you to know that NASA is very close to me, I'm
    wearing this watch that was given to me by the crew of the STS-
    70, the all-Ohio crew that happens to have the OSU Buckeye sign
    on it.
        We're all aware of what NASA's done, and their engineering
    and scientific accomplishments. Given the complexity and
    uniqueness and variety of the missions that are managed under
    the NASA umbrella, it's of utmost importance that the Agency
    have adequate human capital framework to ensure their success,
    and I just want you to know how pleased I am with the fact that
    NASA has used the additional flexibilities that we gave them in
    2004 so that you could go out and recruit the best and
    brightest people to work for NASA.
        In addition to that, I'd like to thank you and former
    Administrator Griffin for the fact that you came up with a
    program at a very difficult time to maintain the 10 centers
    that we had throughout the United States. And I want to applaud
    you that you took back in work that was going out to other
    contractors to try and maintain the in-house capability of
    NASA.
        I am also please, Madam Chairwoman, that when there was a
    concern about whether or not you were going to continue your
    commitment to aeronautics, and I agree with you, Madam
    Chairwoman, that that budget for aeronautics ought to be
    reviewed.
        But I'm also grateful that you identified our, as Glenn,
    for the CEV and for the launch vehicle, that we now have a new
    mission.
        I think the real challenge now is to make sure that we
    allocate these resources in the places that it makes the most
    difference. And I think that Senator Shelby makes a very good
    point about dealing with some of the real-world things, and I
    think the American public is going to demand that, and I'm
    certainly hoping that Mr. Augustine takes that into
    consideration when he comes back to make his recommendations to
    NASA.
        I have to say that I was concerned about what the
    administration would do about the NASA budget. There was many
    of us that felt that because of other priorities, that the NASA
    budget would be shortchanged. That hasn't been the case--as
    Senator Shelby says, there's been an increase of 5.1 percent.
    So, somebody did a pretty good job with OMB, convincing them
    that this program was worthwhile.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And I keep emphasizing--as I had when I was mayor, and
    Governor of Ohio--that too often NASA does not do a good enough
    job in letting the folks of this country know how the work that
    they're doing has so many other things that make a difference
    in people's lives. In other words, not just up in space, but
    all of these things that you're doing, do impact--remarkably--
    the quality of life of people here in this country.
        And we've seen this at Cleveland Clinic. They've taken a
    lot of stuff that you guys have developed, and put it to work
    to save people's lives.
        So, I'm anxious to hear your testimony today.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator George V. Voinovich

        Good Morning. Thank you Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member
    Shelby for convening today's hearing. Thank you Mr. Scolese for
    participating. I am looking forward to hearing more about the
    administration's fiscal year 2010 budget request and what NASA has in
    store for the future.
        NASA's engineering and scientific accomplishments have long been a
    symbol of America's innovation and technological excellence.
        Given the complexity, uniqueness, and variety of missions that are
    managed under the NASA umbrella, it is of utmost importance that the
    agency have an adequate human capital framework to ensure mission
    success. That is why I have utilized my role on the Homeland Security
    and Government Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
    Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia to work
    with NASA to improve its workforce development.
        I am proud that the agency has made substantial and commendable
    strides in its human capital management since 2004, when my
    legislation, the NASA Flexibility Act, was signed into law. NASA has
    certainly done a much better job in recruiting, developing, and
    retaining the staff it needs to execute the agency's missions.
        As a former mayor of Cleveland and governor of Ohio, I have been
    concerned for many years about NASA Glenn's struggle to obtain an
    identifiable mission. When I spoke with several of NASA Glenn's
    administrators a few years ago, we were all worried about restoring
    NASA's aeronautics funding and setting NASA Glenn on a clear mission
    forward.
        In 2005, when Mike Griffin became NASA's administrator, I met with
    him to discuss the future of NASA Glenn, and he assured me he was not
    only focused on keeping NASA centers around the country functioning,
    but also that he was committed to finding a new mission for Glenn. I
    was pleased with Griffin's leadership. He did a great job managing and
    maintaining the ten NASA research centers at a time when the agency was
    going through a difficult transition.
        I am so glad he was able to work with Lockheed Martin to see NASA
    Glenn secure an identifiable mission that included testing and
    certification of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) as well as
    overseeing the development of several Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) upper
    stage systems.
        But the staffs at NASA Glenn and at the Plum Brook facility are
    eager to do more.
        Glenn is renowned for its blend of aeronautics and space flight
    experience. Together, NASA Glenn Research Center and the Air Force
    Research Lab at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base have helped shape Ohio
    as a global leader in aerospace design and production.
        I am generally pleased with where NASA has been headed, but
    concerned that with the impending retirement of the Space Shuttle, and
    its replacement by the next generation of human space flight systems
    that shifting priorities within NASA could lead to the transfer of NASA
    Glenn Research Center's mission responsibilities to other NASA centers.
        It is my hope that the vitality of Glenn be maintained, and that
    the Obama Administration and its future nominee for NASA administrator
    would continue its commitment to the ``10 Healthy Center Concept.''
        Mr. Scolese, thank you again for joining us, I am eager to hear
    your thoughts on the future NASA.

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Scolese, please proceed.

                      STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE

        Mr. Scolese. Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member
    Shelby, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    me here today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2010
    budget request of $18.686 billion for NASA.
        The President's request is $903.6 million above the fiscal
    year 2009 omnibus appropriation.
        First, let me note that NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget is
    $18.8 billion, or about $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2009
    request. This reflects an increase of $168 million in the
    regular appropriations, and about $1 billion in the Recovery
    Act.
        NASA is appreciative of the support of this committee, and
    the Congress, for the full funding of the fiscal year 2009
    request, and the additional Recovery Act funds, which will
    enable NASA to meet critical priorities.
        The President's fiscal year 2010 request includes $4.5
    billion for science. In Earth Science, NASA is continuing to
    work aggressively to implement the recommendations of the
    decadal survey. The first two decadal missions--SMAP and
    ICESat-II, continue formulation. The next two DESDynI and
    CLARREO--will be accelerated and NASA will issue its first
    Venture-class announcement of opportunity this year.
        Over the next year, we plan to launch the Glory and
    Aquarius missions, the GOES-O mission for NOAA, and complete
    the development of the NPOESS Preparatory Project.
        We will continue development of the foundational missions,
    including the global precipitation mission, the landsat data
    continuity mission, and initiate work on a thermal infrared
    sensor.
        NASA is currently assessing options to recover from the
    disappointing loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, and we
    will keep you informed of our findings and plans.
        In planetary science, we are continuing the exploration of
    the solar system with the Juno mission to Jupiter, the Mars
    Science Laboratory, and the MAVEN Scout mission to Mars.
        In astrophysics, I'm pleased to report that the final
    Hubble servicing mission EVA was completed on Monday, and
    earlier this week, the Space Shuttle successfully released a
    revitalized Hubble Space Telescope. We look forward to many
    more years of discoveries from Hubble. Development continues on
    the James Webb Space Telescope, which passed its confirmation
    review last year, and has an Agency commitment to launch in
    2014.
        NASA's fleet of heliophysics missions located throughout
    the solar system is providing researchers the first ever
    comprehensive view of solar influences on the Earth and other
    planets.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $507 million renews
    NASA's commitment to a strong program in aeronautics, that will
    continue to contribute to the economic well-being and quality
    of life of Americans through its partnerships with industry,
    academia, and other government agencies.
        Our Airspace Systems Program continues to collaborate with
    the Joint Planning Development Office to enhance the capacity,
    efficiency, and flexibility of the National Airspace System.
        In exploration, the President's fiscal year 2010 budget
    request of $3.963 billion is an increase of $457 million above
    the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations level, and $225.4
    million above last year's plan. This increased budget will
    support continued progress to advance the development of the
    next-generation human spaceflight system to carry American
    crews and supplies to space and return Americans to the Moon.
    Specifically, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar
    Crater Observation Sensing Satellite spacecraft are ready for
    launch next month. Later this year, two major test flights will
    be conducted: the Ares 1-X developmental test flight from KSC,
    and the Orion Pad Abort I test at the White Sands Missile
    Range.
        At the request of the Director of the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy, NASA is initiating an independent review of
    U.S. human space flight plans, conducted by a panel of outside
    experts, chaired by Norm Augustine. The review will examine
    ongoing and planned NASA human spaceflight development
    activities and potential alternatives, and present options for
    advancing a safe, innovative, sustainable, and affordable human
    spaceflight program in the years following Shuttle retirement.
    It will also evaluate options for extending ISS operations
    beyond 2016. The panel will present its results by August 2009.
    During the review, the NASA workforce will continue to work on
    all current exploration projects, including the Ares I and
    Orion.
        The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request includes
    $6.176 billion for Space Operations, which funds the safe
    flight of the Space Shuttle to complete the eight remaining
    scheduled flights to the ISS and then retire the Shuttle. We
    believe these flights can be accomplished by the end of 2010.
    This month, the ISS will host its first six-person crew, and
    next month, the STS-127 mission will deliver the third and
    final component of the Japanese Kibo laboratory, setting the
    stage for full research utilization of the ISS.
        Last December, NASA awarded two commercial resupply
    services contracts to develop vehicles needed to deliver
    supplies and experiments to the ISS. The benefits from NASA's
    human spaceflights programs are ultimately demonstrated in the
    inspiration of the next generation of Americans, which was
    reflected recently in the delighted faces of students who
    participated in the uplink phone call between President Obama
    and the combined Shuttle and Station crews last month.
        Finally, the fiscal year 2010 request supports NASA's
    Education Program, to continue developing a future aerospace,
    technical, and scientific workforce, improving the
    technological competitiveness of our Nation's universities, and
    attracting and retaining students in science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics disciplines.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        This request also funds the NASA cross-agency support
    programs, which provide critical mission support activities,
    necessary to assure the efficient and effective operation and
    administration of the Agency and its Centers.
        Madam Chair, thank you again for your support, and that of
    this committee, I would be pleased to respond to any questions
    you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Scolese

        Chairwoman Mikulski and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2010 budget request for NASA. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget
    request for NASA is $18.686 billion. The fiscal year 2010 request
    represents an increase of $903.6 million above the amount provided for
    NASA in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law
    110-8). The fiscal year 2010 budget does a number of things: it
    supports the administration's commitment to deploy a global climate
    change research and monitoring system; it funds a strong program of
    space exploration involving humans and robots with the goal of
    returning Americans to the moon and exploring other destinations; and
    it supports the safe flight of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly
    of the International Space Station by the Space Shuttle's planned
    retirement.

    Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Overview
        With the fiscal year 2010 budget request, NASA advances global
    climate change research and monitoring. The NASA investment in Earth
    science research satellites, airborne sensors, computer models and
    analysis has revolutionized scientific knowledge and predictions of
    climate change and its effects. Using the National Research Council's
    recommended priorities for space-based Earth science research as its
    guide, NASA will develop new space-based research sensors in support of
    the administration's goal to deploy a global climate research and
    monitoring system. NASA will work to deploy these new sensors
    expeditiously while coordinating with other Federal agencies to ensure
    continuity of measurements that have long-term research and
    applications benefits.
        The fiscal year 2010 NASA request funds a robust program of space
    exploration involving humans and robots. NASA's astronauts and robotic
    spacecraft have been exploring our solar system and the universe for
    more than 50 years. The Agency will create a new chapter of this legacy
    as it works to return Americans to the Moon by 2020. NASA also will
    send a broad suite of robotic missions to destinations throughout the
    solar system and develop a bold new set of astronomical observatories
    to probe the mysteries of the universe, increasing investment in
    research, data analysis, and technology development in support of these
    goals.
        With the fiscal year 2010 request, NASA will complete the
    International Space Station (ISS) and advance the development of new
    space transportation systems and the unique scientific research that
    can be conducted onboard the ISS. The fiscal year 2010 budget request
    funds for the safe flight of the Space Shuttle to complete the ISS,
    incorporates an additional flight to deliver the Alpha Magnetic
    Spectrometer (AMS) to the ISS, and then retires the Shuttle. NASA is
    committed to completing these nine remaining scheduled Shuttle flights,
    including the current mission underway to service the Hubble Space
    Telescope, which we believe can be accomplished by the end of 2010.
    Funds freed from the Shuttle's retirement will enable the Agency to
    support development of systems to deliver people and cargo to the ISS
    and the Moon and explore other destinations. As part of this effort,
    NASA will stimulate private-sector development and demonstration of
    vehicles that may support the Agency's human crew and cargo
    requirements for ISS. In addition, the Agency will continue to utilize
    the ISS, the permanently crewed facility orbiting Earth that enables
    the Agency to develop, test, and validate critical space exploration
    technologies and processes, and to conduct microgravity research. NASA
    also will continue to coordinate with international partners to make
    this platform available for other government entities, commercial
    industry, and academic institutions to conduct research.
        At the request of the Director of the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy, NASA is initiating an independent review of planned
    U.S. human space flight activities, with the goal of ensuring that the
    Nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving its boldest
    aspirations in space. This review will be conducted by a blue-ribbon
    panel of outside experts chaired by Norman R. Augustine. The panel will
    present its results in time to support an administration decision on
    the way forward by August 2009. This Review of U.S. Human Space Flight
    Plans will examine ongoing and planned NASA human space flight
    development activities, as well as potential alternatives, and present
    options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable
    human space flight program in the years following completion of the
    current Space Shuttle manifest and retirement. The independent review
    panel will seek input from Congress, the White House, the public,
    industry, and international partners. In addition, the review will
    examine the appropriate amount of R&D and complementary robotic
    activities needed to make human space flight activities most productive
    and affordable over the long term, as well as appropriate opportunities
    for international collaboration. It will also evaluate what
    capabilities would be enabled by each of the potential architectures
    considered. And it will evaluate options for extending International
    Space Station operations beyond 2016. We will keep the Congress
    informed, as appropriate, with the progress of the review.
        It is important to note that the President has submitted a fiscal
    year 2010 budget request for NASA Exploration Systems of $3.963
    billion, an increase of $457.6 million above the fiscal year 2009
    Omnibus Appropriations level. During the review, the NASA workforce
    will continue to focus on the safe flight and operation of the Space
    Shuttle and ISS, and continue to work on all current exploration
    projects, including Ares I, Orion, and Commercial Crew and Cargo
    efforts.
        The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $507
    million for Aeronautics Research, renewing NASA's commitment to
    cutting-edge, fundamental research in traditional and emerging
    disciplines to help transform the Nation's air transportation system
    and to support future aircraft. NASA research will increase airspace
    capacity and mobility, enhance aviation safety, and improve aircraft
    performance while reducing noise, emissions, and fuel consumption. The
    Integrated Systems Research Program, a new program beginning in fiscal
    year 2010, will conduct research at an integrated system-level on
    promising concepts and technologies and explore, assess, and
    demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment.
        Finally, consistent with administration priorities, NASA is
    developing plans to stimulate innovation and increase investments in
    technologies for the future while ensuring that nearer-term Agency
    commitments are met.

    NASA Initial Fiscal Year 2009 Operating Plan and Recovery Act Funding
        Before I highlight key accomplishments and plans for activities
    across the Agency, I would like to summarize NASA's initial fiscal year
    2009 Operating Plan, including Recovery Act funding, as recently
    submitted to the subcommittee. The initial fiscal year 2009 Operating
    Plan is $18,784.4 million, or $1,170.2 million above the President's
    fiscal year 2009 request, which reflects an increase of $168.2 million
    in the regular appropriation and $1,002.0 million in the Recovery Act.
    NASA is appreciative of the action by the Committees on Appropriations
    and Congress in providing regular appropriations for the Agency with
    full funding for Science, Aeronautics, Exploration, Space Shuttle, ISS,
    and Education. This total fiscal year 2009 appropriations level, with
    minor adjustments within the total, will enable NASA to meet critical
    priorities, in accordance with the direction from the Congress and the
    President. NASA also appreciates the efforts by the subcommittees to
    include funding for NASA in the Recovery Act. This funding will help
    NASA achieve programmatic goals in Science, Exploration and
    Aeronautics, and repair damage done to the NASA Johnson Space Center
    during Hurricane Ike, and support national recovery goals.
        NASA has allocated the $1,002.0 million in Recovery Act funds as
    follows:
      --Science, $400.0 Million
        --Earth Science, $325.0 Million
        --Astrophysics, $75.0 Million
      --Aeronautics, $150.0 Million
      --Exploration, $400.0 Million
        --Constellation Systems, $250.0 Million
        --Commercial Crew & Cargo, $150.0 Million
      --Cross Agency Support, $50.0 Million
      --Inspector General, $2.0 Million
        I would be happy to address the objectives to which NASA is
    applying the Recovery Act funds in detail.

    Science
        NASA's Science Mission Directorate continues to expand humanity's
    understanding of our Earth, our Sun, the solar system and the universe
    with 57 science missions in operation and 31 more in development. The
    Science budget funds these missions as well as the research of over
    3,000 scientists and their students across the Nation. The President's
    fiscal year 2010 request for NASA includes $4,477.2 million for
    Science.
        The Science budget request includes $1,405.0 million for Earth
    Science in fiscal year 2010, and steadily increases Earth science
    funding in the outyears. NASA's 15 Earth Science missions in operation
    provide a large share of the global observations used for climate
    change research in the United States and elsewhere. This year, NASA's
    Earth Science satellites enabled research to understand how changes
    both in the tropics and in Arctic sea ice are changing ocean biology
    globally. NASA also recently conducted the first Ice Bridge aircraft
    campaign to demonstrate a new airborne laser capability to bridge the
    gap in time between ICESats 1 and 2. In fiscal year 2010, NASA plans to
    launch the Glory mission to map atmospheric aerosols and continue the
    long record of solar influences on climate, and the Aquarius mission to
    provide the first global measurements of sea surface salinity. NASA
    will complete development of the NPOESS Preparatory Project and
    continue development of the Global Precipitation Mission and the
    Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). The request fully funds
    development of a Thermal Infra-red Sensor (TIRS) at a total cost of
    approximately $150-175 million. A decision whether to fly TIRS on LDCM
    or another spacecraft will be made this summer; meanwhile, funding for
    TIRS is carried within the LDCM budget. The launch vehicle failure of
    the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was a significant loss to the
    climate science communities, and NASA is assessing options to recover
    from that loss; we will inform the Congress of the results of these
    studies when they become available. NASA is continuing to work
    aggressively to implement the recommendations of the National Research
    Council Decadal Survey for Earth Science. The first two Decadal Survey
    missions, SMAP and ICESat-II, will continue formulation in fiscal year
    2010, and the next two, DESDynI and CLARREO, will be accelerated and
    transition to formulation. NASA also expects to issue its first
    Venture-class Announcement of Opportunity later this year, implementing
    another important decadal survey recommendation.
        The fiscal year 2010 Science budget request includes $1,346.2
    million for Planetary Science. NASA's Planetary Science missions
    continue to return images and data from the far reaches of the Solar
    System. This year, the Mars Phoenix Lander completed its mission,
    conducting the first chemical test providing evidence of water ice on
    another planet. MESSENGER returned stunning imagery of portions of the
    planet Mercury never before seen. The Cassini spacecraft continues to
    provide un-paralleled science of the Saturnian system; the spacecraft
    flew within 25km of Enceladus viewing the ejecting plumes and surface,
    and data from 19 fly-bys of Titan enabled creation of a radar map
    showing 3-D topography revealing 1,200-meter (4,000-foot) mountain
    tops, polar lakes, vast dunes, and thick flows from possible ice
    volcanoes. Development is continuing on the Juno mission to Jupiter for
    launch in 2011. NASA and ESA jointly announced they will work together
    on a Europa Jupiter System mission as the next outer planets flagship
    mission. The rovers Spirit and Opportunity continue to study the
    Martian surface and have exceeded their 5-year of successful
    operations. NASA is continuing development of the Mars Science
    Laboratory (MSL) for launch in 2011 and selected MAVEN, a Mars aeronomy
    mission, as the next Mars Scout mission for launch in 2013. NASA has
    integrated its lunar science research program with the Lunar Precursor
    Robotic Program into a single Lunar Quest Program under the Science
    Mission Directorate, which includes the LADEE mission, the U.S. nodes
    of the ILN, and a new virtual university research collaboration called
    the NASA Lunar Science Institute. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) was
    launched aboard Chandrayaan-1 and has begun making scientific
    observations of the Moon's composition. Development is continuing on
    the GRAIL mission to map the Moon's gravity field for launch in 2011.
    NASA has issued an Announcements of Opportunity for the next New
    Frontiers mission, and will do so for the next Discovery mission later
    this year.
        The fiscal year 2010 Science budget request includes $1,120.9
    million for Astrophysics. 2009 is the International Year of Astronomy,
    and NASA's Astrophysics program will deploy exciting new capabilities
    for studying the cosmic frontier. The Kepler mission, launched in
    March, is NASA's first mission dedicated to the search for Earth-like
    planets in our galaxy. ESA will launch the Herschel and Planck missions
    in April, carrying several NASA instruments, to study the far-infrared
    sky and the cosmic microwave background. The final Hubble Space
    Telescope serving mission aboard STS-125, currently in progress, is
    upgrading the observatory to its peak scientific performance. Late this
    calendar year, NASA plans to launch the Wide-field Infrared Survey
    Explorer (WISE) as part of its highly successful Explorer Program,
    following on the recent successes of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space
    Telescope (launched as GLAST in July 2008), which has provided the
    best-ever view of the gamma-ray sky revealing energetic sources in our
    solar system, our galaxy, and galaxies billions of light-years away.
    Development is continuing on the James Webb Space Telescope, which
    passed its Confirmation Review in 2008 and has an Agency commitment to
    launch in 2014. Development continues on the NuSTAR mission to study
    black holes for launch in 2011, along with a Soft X-ray Spectrometer to
    fly on Japan's Astro-H mission in 2013. Development continues on the
    airborne Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy or SOFIA,
    which will conduct open door flight tests in 2009 and early science
    flights in 2010, with planned full operational capability in 2014.
    Conceptual design is continuing for ambitious future mission concepts
    to investigate the origins of planets, stars, and galaxies; to search
    for Earth-like planets around nearby stars; and to examine the nature
    of dark energy, dark matter, gravity waves, and black holes. These and
    other mission concepts are currently under consideration by the NRC's
    decadal survey for Astrophysics, or Astro 2010, which will be completed
    during 2010, and will provide recommendations to NASA on the science
    community's highest priority science questions and strategic missions
    for the next decade.
        The fiscal year 2010 Science budget request includes $605.0 million
    for Heiophysics. The fleet of NASA Heliophysics missions strategically
    placed throughout the solar system is providing researchers the first
    ever solar system-wide view of solar influences on the Earth and other
    planets, and the dynamic structures of space itself. This virtual
    ``Great Observatory'' is in place and functioning for the next solar
    magnetic activity cycle, and has already detected the first signs of a
    new solar maximum anticipated for 2011-2012. Late this year or early
    next, the launch of Solar Dynamics Observatory will add to this fleet
    the capability to observe the solar atmosphere to a depth one-third of
    the Sun's radius to study the flow of plasmas that generate magnetic
    fields and the sudden changes that produce coronal mass ejections that
    we experience as space weather. Also this year, NASA plans to select
    two Small Explorer (SMEX) missions in response to an Announcement of
    Opportunity issued in 2008, which could be either Heliophysics or
    Astrophysics missions depending on the proposals selected. Development
    of the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission to study the interactions of
    space weather events with Earth's magnetic field is continuing for
    launch in 2012. The Magnetosphere Multi-Scale mission to observe the
    processes of magnetic reconnection, energetic particle acceleration,
    and turbulence in Earth's magnetosphere will undergo a Confirmation
    Review this year for a planned launch in 2014. Finally, NASA is
    continuing early formulation work on the Solar Probe-Plus mission that
    will travel into, and sample, the near-Sun environment to probe the
    origins of the solar wind.

    Aeronautics Research
        NASA's fiscal year 2010 budget provides $507 million for
    Aeronautics Research. Over the past year, the Aeronautics Research
    Mission Directorate has continued to pursue long-term, 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. NASA
    Aeronautics Research also plays a vital role in supporting NASA's space
    exploration activities.
        A primary goal across Aeronautics Research programs 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 (SAAs) 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. To date, 68 SAAs have
    been established with industry partners across all programs and 375
    NRAs have been awarded to academia, industry and non-profit
    organizations. NASA Aeronautics has continued to collaborate with the
    Joint Planning Development Office (JPDO), Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA), U.S. Air Force, Army, and other government
    organizations.
        New for fiscal year 2010, $62.4 million has been provided for the
    Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP) to conduct research at an
    integrated system-level on promising concepts and technologies and
    explore, assess, or demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment.
    The research in this program will be coordinated with on-going, long-
    term, foundational research within the three other research programs,
    and will be closely coordinated with other Federal Government agency
    efforts. The project within ISRP will be the Environmentally
    Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project, a ``green aircraft initiative,''
    that will explore and assess new vehicle concepts and enabling
    technologies through system-level experimentation to simultaneously
    reduce fuel burn, noise, and emissions. The ERA project will transfer
    knowledge outward to the aeronautics community so that aircraft and
    propulsion system manufacturers can confidently transition these
    technologies into new products, as well as transfer knowledge inward to
    the Fundamental Aeronautics Program when the need for further
    development at a foundational level is identified.
        NASA's Airspace Systems Program (ASP) 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. For fiscal year 2010, ASP has been
    reorganized from the NextGen Airspace and NextGen Airportal projects
    into the NextGen Concepts and Technology Development project and the
    NextGen Systems Analysis, Integration and Evaluation project. The
    distinctions between airport operations, terminal-area operations and
    en-route operations were sometimes confusing, leading to time expended
    determining the line of demarcation between the responsibilities of the
    two projects. A more significant distinction is the development of air
    traffic management concepts and the technologies that enable air
    traffic management improvements and the evaluation of these concepts
    and technologies at a system level. The previously planned work on
    airspace concepts, technologies and systems will continue. This new
    project structure is better aligned to the nature of the work being
    performed. A notable accomplishment for ASP is the successful
    completion, by NASA researchers in collaboration with academia and the
    FAA, of a series of human-in-the-loop experiments that explored
    advanced concepts and technology for separation assurance, which
    ensures that aircraft maintain a safe distance from other aircraft,
    terrain, obstacles, and certain airspace not designated for routine air
    travel. The technology being developed by NASA and its partners is
    critical to relieving air-traffic controller workload, a primary
    constraint on airspace capacity that is expected to increase in coming
    years. In the future, this Program will continue to develop new
    technologies to solve important problems such as surface traffic
    planning and control, and initial algorithms for airport arrival and
    departure balancing as well as developing traffic flow management
    concepts for increased efficiencies at the regional and national levels
    for different planning intervals.
        NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) conducts research in
    all aeronautics disciplines that enable the design of vehicles that fly
    through any atmosphere at any speed. For fiscal year 2010, all ARMD
    research into planetary entry, descent and landing (EDL) has been
    consolidated into the Hypersonics project in FAP. EDL is an integral
    part of many space missions and is not easily divided into distinct
    hypersonic and supersonic phases. This change will provide more focus
    to technical developments and will also yield technical management
    efficiencies. The FAP program has supported the testing of various new
    concepts that will help enable much improved capabilities for future
    vehicles. For example, wind-tunnel testing was conducted for several
    promising powered lift concepts. Powered lift concepts increase lifting
    force on an aircraft at slow speeds (e.g., at take-off and landing)
    without increasing drag under cruise conditions. Successful use of the
    concepts will enable short take-off and landings on runways less than
    3,000 feet, which will increase next-generation air transportation
    system capacity through the use of shorter fields and improved low-
    speed maneuverability in airport terminal areas. Testing was also
    completed for a Smart Material Actuated Rotor Technology (SMART)
    helicopter rotor, which offers the potential for significant noise and
    vibration reduction in rotorcraft. Future work includes technologies
    and advanced tools to evaluate the trades between noise, emissions, and
    performance of future aircraft entering service in the 2012-2015
    timeframe. Additionally, with the transfer of technologies to be
    matured to system-level within ISRP, the Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW)
    project is streamlining its research content. This is enabling new
    efficiencies across the foundational disciplines remaining in the
    project. The integrated system-level research in this program will be
    coordinated with on-going, long-term, foundational research within the
    three other research programs, and will focus specifically on maturing
    and integrating technologies in major vehicle systems and subsystems
    for accelerated transition to practical application.
        NASA's Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) continues to develop tools
    and technologies to improve on today's incredibly safe air
    transportation system, while ensuring that future technologies can be
    safely incorporated to the system. Examples of advances that support
    this development include NASA's ongoing and new research into aircraft
    icing. For example, with current knowledge we cannot extrapolate how
    ice forms on a straight wing such as found on a turbo-prop to how it
    will form on a swept wing, or a radically new aircraft configuration.
    The Aviation Safety Program is tackling this with a combination of
    computational models and experiments in NASA's Icing Research Tunnel.
    We are establishing that, in high and cold flight conditions, ice can
    form deeper in jet engines than previously understood. NASA is working
    collaboratively with the FAA, industry and international partners, such
    as the National Research Council of Canada, to conduct tunnel tests of
    the underlying physics, to fly our instrumented S-3 Viking into such
    engine icing conditions, and design upgrades to our Propulsion System
    Lab in which jet engines may be tested in detail. Additional future
    work in Aviation Safety includes addressing gaps in validation and
    verification of critical flight software, developing new data-analysis
    capabilities to mine aviation operational data for safety issues,
    examining the safety of new vehicle systems and structures, and
    tackling the biggest human factors issues in the NextGen flightdeck.
        NASA's Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) is focused on ensuring a
    healthy suite of facilities and platforms to meet the Nation's testing
    needs including the development of new test instrumentation and test
    technologies. As part of its continuous efforts to improve facility
    operational efficiencies, ATP initiated the National Force Measurement
    Technology Capability, to address the severe erosion of NASA's
    capability to utilize strain gage balances in wind tunnel testing. The
    National Partnership for Aeronautics Testing, a strategic partnership
    between NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD), recently commissioned
    a study of government-owned, mid-to-large supersonic facilities
    necessary to fulfill future air vehicle test requirements. The Program
    will continue to develop 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 capabilities.

    Exploration Systems
        Human space flight is important to America's political, economic,
    technological and scientific leadership. In the span of a few short
    years, NASA has already taken long strides in the formulation of
    strategies and programs to develop a robust program of space
    exploration. These critical steps will allow our Nation to build the
    next-generation space flight vehicles that will carry humans and
    deliver cargo to the ISS and the Moon, and on to other destinations in
    our solar system. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for
    Exploration Systems is $3,963.1 million, an increase of $457.6 million
    above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation and $225.4 million above the
    planned fiscal year 2010 level in last year's request. Based on the
    Recovery Act funds and the President's increased budget request for
    fiscal year 2010, the Exploration Systems budget plan includes about
    $630 million more in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 than the
    previous plan. At this critical juncture, full funding at the
    President's requested level is essential for expediting development of
    new U.S. human space flight systems to support the International Space
    Station and explore the Moon and other destinations beyond low Earth
    orbit.
        The Constellation Program will apply additional Recovery Act funds
    to critical activities related to the successful completion of the
    Orion, Ares I and Ground Operations projects. The Commercial Crew and
    Cargo Program plans to use Recovery Act funds to stimulate efforts
    within the private sector in order to develop and demonstrate
    technologies that enable commercial human space flight capabilities--
    efforts that are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to
    job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research, and to
    economic growth as capabilities for new markets are created.
        Following the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight activities, the
    administration will provide an updated request for Exploration
    activities, as necessary. In the meantime, NASA is proceeding as
    planned with current Exploration activities, including Ares I, Orion,
    Commercial Crew and Cargo efforts, and lunar systems.
        During the past year, NASA Exploration Systems continued to make
    significant progress in developing the next-generation U.S. human space
    flight vehicles and their associated ground and mission support
    systems. In the next several weeks, the first lunar robotic mission,
    the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar Crater Observation
    Sensing Satellite spacecraft, will be launched from the Cape Canaveral
    Air Force Station aboard an Atlas V, which will help NASA scout for
    potential lunar landing and outpost sites. Later this year, two major
    test flights for the Constellation Program will be conducted: Ares I-X
    is the first developmental test flight to support the design of the
    Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle; and the Pad Abort 1 (PA-1) is the first
    test of the Launch Abort System to be used on the Orion Crew
    Exploration Vehicle. NASA will continue to work with other nations and
    the commercial sector to coordinate planning, leverage investment, and
    identify opportunities for specific collaboration on Exploration
    activities.
        The Constellation Program continues to complete the formulation
    phase of its projects--in particular Ares I, Orion, and major ground
    facilities. Major development work is underway, contracts are in place;
    and we have a dedicated group of civil servants and contractors who are
    all working hard to accomplish the Constellation Program's objectives.
    So far, NASA engineers have conducted about 6,500 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
    the Ares I-X test flight, will lay the groundwork for maturing the Ares
    I final design prior to its Critical Design Review (CDR). When launched
    later this year from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the Ares
    I-X will climb about 25 miles in a 2-minute powered test of the First
    Stage performance and the First Stage separation and parachute recovery
    system. Work on the Orion Project also continues to advance. Recently,
    NASA conducted testing of the water recovery process for the Orion
    capsule, and NASA also selected the material for Orion's heat shield.
    Later this year, Orion's PA-1 test will take place at White Sands
    Missile Range, New Mexico. PA-1 will demonstrate the Launch Abort
    System's ability to pull crew to safety should there be an emergency
    while the Orion and Ares I stack is still on the launch pad.
        In September 2008, Ares I completed a key milestone with its
    Preliminary Design Review (PDR). PDR is the final step of the initial
    design process, and thereby a crucial milestone during which the
    overall project verifies that the preliminary design can meet all
    requirements within acceptable risk limits and within cost and schedule
    constraints, and identifies technical and management challenges and
    addresses approaches for eliminating or mitigating them. This fall, the
    Orion is expected to have progressed to the point of completing PDR,
    and obtaining Agency approval to proceed to Critical Design Review
    (CDR). Current plans call for Ares I to progress to the point of
    obtaining Agency approval by early 2010 to proceed to CDR.
        As part of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program and its associated
    Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) cargo projects, NASA
    is completing its promised $500 million investment to the two funded
    COTS partners, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of
    El Segundo, California, and Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) of
    Dulles, Virginia. Recently, SpaceX successfully operated the full
    complement of the first stage engines of the Falcon 9, the SpaceX
    launch vehicle. Orbital continues to progress in achieving engineering
    milestones, and completed its PDR earlier this month. In addition, NASA
    has two non-funded COTS partners.
        The transition of NASA facilities, infrastructure, property, and
    personnel from the Space Shuttle Program to the Constellation Program
    continues to be a major activity. This joint effort between the Space
    Operations and Exploration Systems Mission Directorates includes the
    utilization and disposition of resources, including real and personal
    property; personnel; and processes in order to leverage existing
    Shuttle and Space Station assets for NASA's future Exploration
    activities.
        NASA's Advanced Capabilities programs include the Human Research
    Program (HRP) and the Exploration Technology Development Program
    (ETDP). These programs continue to reduce risks for human explorers of
    the Moon and beyond by conducting research and developing new
    technologies to aid future explorers. HRP focuses on the highest risks
    to crew health and performance during exploration missions while also
    developing and validating a suite of human health countermeasures to
    facilitate long-duration space travel. For example, NASA is conducting
    research to better understand the effect of space radiation on humans
    and to develop effective mitigation strategies. This year, HRP
    delivered a space radiation risk assessment tool, provided cockpit
    display design requirements for the Orion spacecraft, and provided
    design requirements for the new Constellation Space Suit System. HRP is
    also conducting research onboard the ISS with regard to: the cardiac
    structure and function of astronauts; radiation shielding technologies;
    and, the effect that certain pharmaceuticals may have on the prevention
    of bone loss during long-duration missions. ETDP will conduct a range
    of activities, including testing cryogenic hydrogen and methane
    propulsion systems for future missions; developing a small pressurized
    rover for transporting astronauts on the lunar surface; and
    demonstrating the capability to produce oxygen from lunar soil. ETDP
    also is conducting experiments on the Space Station to investigate the
    behavior of fluids and combustion in microgravity, and operating
    instruments to monitor atmospheric contaminants on the Space Station.

    Space Operations
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $6,175.6 million for
    Space Operations.
        It is an exciting time for NASA's Space Shuttle Program. At this
    moment, the astronauts of Shuttle Atlantis are in orbit on STS-125, the
    final mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. We anticipate that
    the work they are doing, which includes upgrading the Hubble's
    instruments, should extend the observatory's operational life several
    years. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget funds the safe flight of
    the Space Shuttle to conduct its remaining missions, including the AMS
    flight and completing assembly of the ISS. NASA is committed to
    completing the eight remaining scheduled Shuttle flights, which we
    believe can be accomplished by the end of 2010. These Shuttle flights
    will leave the ISS in a configuration to support a broad portfolio of
    research and to receive and be maintained by commercial cargo services.
    The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $3,157.1 million for the
    Space Shuttle Program.
        NASA and its Russian, European, Canadian, and Japanese
    International Space Station partners are working together to realize
    one of the most inspiring dreams of the last 50 years: the
    establishment of a station in Earth orbit for the conduct of various
    types of research. We are now approaching two significant milestones.
    In May, the ISS will host its first six-person crew. The recent
    delivery of the Station's final set of solar arrays and other equipment
    by the crew of STS-119 represents the final step toward this goal. In
    June, the STS-127 mission will deliver the third and final component of
    the Japanese Kibo laboratory--the Kibo Exposed Facility. The addition
    of the Exposed facility enables the Kibo laboratory, with the European
    Columbus module and the U.S. Destiny module, to complete the three
    major international science labs on ISS, setting the stage for
    utilization of ISS as a highly capable microgravity research facility.
    The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $2,267.0
    million for the ISS.
        The ISS will represent both an unparalleled international
    cooperative effort and a U.S. National Laboratory in orbit. Scientists
    will be able to conduct biomedical and engineering research from a
    unique vantage point. Some of the work will increase our knowledge of
    the effects of long-duration human space flight, which is critical for
    the design and operation of future human space vehicles, including
    those being developed under the Constellation Program to return U.S.
    astronauts to the Moon and explore other destinations. Other research
    will not be focused on space exploration at all, but may have
    significant applications right here on Earth. Medical research, for
    example, may be applicable to the development of vaccines; NASA's
    research into salmonella aboard the Space Shuttle and ISS has already
    increased our knowledge in this area. In the key areas of energy and
    the environment, the ISS serves as a daily demonstration of ``green''
    technologies and environmental management techniques. The ISS receives
    120kW of power from its solar arrays to operate the Station and run
    experiments. The ISS environmental system is designed to minimize the
    amount of mass that has to be launched from Earth to support the
    Station, so recycling is a must. STS-119 supplied ISS with a
    replacement Distillation Assembly for Station's water recycling system,
    which is key for supporting a full six-person crew for extended periods
    of time. Given the central role science and technology play in our
    society, it is important that the United States maintain a leadership
    role in these fields. The availability of a research laboratory in the
    microgravity environment of space will support this aim.
        Another benefit from Space Shuttle missions and ISS research is
    reflected in the programs' ability to inspire the next generation of
    Americans. This was reflected recently in the delighted faces of
    students who participated in the uplinked phone call between President
    Obama and the crews of the ISS and STS-119 on March 24. The ISS will
    support the President's goal of making math and science education a
    national priority by demonstrating what can be accomplished through
    science and engineering, and by inspiring both teachers and students.
        NASA is relying on U.S. industry to develop vehicles to deliver
    supplies and experiments to the ISS. In December 2008, the Agency
    awarded two Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts for the
    provision of this critical capability. Cargo resupply is important for
    the continued viability of ISS. In addition, the vendors involved will
    gain valuable experience in the development and operation of vehicles
    that can (1) fly to the ISS orbit; (2) operate in close proximity to
    the ISS and other docked vehicles; (3) dock to ISS; and, (4) remain
    docked for extended periods of time.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $751.5 million for
    Space and Flight Support, which supports Space Communications and
    Navigation, Launch Services, Rocket Propulsion Testing, Crew Health and
    Safety, and the new Human Space Flight Operations programs.

    Education
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request for Education totals $126.1
    million and furthers NASA's commitment to Science, Technology,
    Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. NASA will continue its
    successes in developing a future aerospace workforce, improving the
    technological competitiveness of our Nation's universities, attracting
    and retaining students in STEM disciplines, and engaging the public in
    NASA's missions. NASA will accomplish these goals by offering
    competitive research grants to universities, providing targeted
    educational support to Minority Serving Institutions, and strengthening
    curricula at 2-year community colleges. NASA's plans to streamline and
    centralize internship and fellowship application processes will realize
    cost savings and facilitate student access to information while
    attracting a wider, more diverse participant base. The Agency is also
    seeking new opportunities for student involvement in current space and
    aeronautics research missions and flight projects, including those
    using high altitude balloons, sounding rocket payloads, airborne
    sensors, and space satellites. NASA will further these efforts through
    a new project, Innovation in STEM Education, which will allow the
    Agency to investigate and offer opportunities for student and faculty
    to participate in NASA-related research. In coming months, the Agency
    will complete award announcements for competitive grant programs in K-
    12, global climate change, and informal education, and revise and issue
    new solicitations using fiscal year 2009 funds.
        NASA will further pursue a goal to attract and retain students in
    STEM disciplines in the upcoming fiscal year. Last year, the
    Interdisciplinary National Science Program Incorporating Research &
    Education (INSPIRE) program engaged over 200 high schools in STEM
    areas, and NASA Explorer Schools conducted instructional and enrichment
    activities that reached over 105,000 students. The March 2009 STS-119
    mission also provided a unique educational opportunity as two Mission
    Specialists who are science teachers, Joe Acaba and Richard Arnold,
    were part of the crew. NASA Education continues to provide internships,
    fellowships, and research opportunities to help students and educators
    gain hands-on experiences in a range of STEM-related areas. These
    opportunities provide students with the motivation, inspiration, and
    experience needed to serve the Nation's current and future workforce
    needs. In fiscal year 2008, the Agency provided more than 3,000 summer
    internships, reached 5,331 students through significant research
    experience or grants, and provided 139 grants to underrepresented and
    underserved institutions.
        NASA will also engage elementary and secondary school and informal
    education audiences by using Earth and deep space observations, the
    flight experience of Educator Astronaut Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger
    aboard STS-131, as well as future missions to the Moon and other
    destinations. New technologies such as social networks, Internet
    collaborations, a new virtual magnet school, and remote control of
    science instruments will expand and enhance these efforts. In fiscal
    year 2010, NASA also plans to provide an online professional
    development system for students training to become educators, in-
    service teachers, and informal educators. Additionally, NASA will
    promote continuous public awareness of its mission and improvement to
    STEM literacy by partnering with informal education providers, which
    allows Agency partners to share the excitement of NASA missions with
    their visitors in meaningful ways.

    Cross-Agency Support
        NASA Cross-Agency Support provides critical mission support
    activities that are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective
    operation and administration of the Agency, but cannot be directly
    aligned to a specific program or project requirement. These important
    functions align and sustain institutional and program capabilities to
    support NASA missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs,
    establishing Agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional
    checks and balances. Cross-Agency Support includes Center Management
    and Operations, Institutional Investments, and Agency Management and
    Operations. The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $3,400.6
    million for Cross Agency Support.
        Center Management and Operations funds the critical ongoing
    management, operations, and maintenance of nine NASA Centers and major
    component facilities. NASA Centers continue to provide high-quality
    support and the technical talent for the execution of programs and
    projects. The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $2.084 million
    for Center Management and Operations.
        Institutional Investments funds design and execution of non-
    programmatic revitalization construction of facilities projects,
    demolition projects for closed facilities, and environmental compliance
    and restoration activities. The Construction of Facilities Program
    makes capital repairs and improvements to NASA's critical
    infrastructure to improve safety and security and improve NASA's
    operating efficiency by reducing utility usage. NASA continues to right
    size the infrastructure by demolishing facilities that are no longer
    needed. Emphasis has been placed on energy and water conservation.
    Currently, NASA has five buildings that are certified under the
    Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria, three
    additional buildings that are built and awaiting certification as LEED
    Silver facilities, and 13 buildings in various stages of design and
    construction as High Performance Buildings and are expected to be LEED-
    certified when completed. The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes
    $355.4 million for Institutional Investments.
        NASA's fiscal year 2010 request includes $961.2 million for Agency
    Management and Operations, which funds the critical management and
    oversight of Agency missions, programs and functions, and performance
    of NASA-wide activities, including five programs: Agency Management,
    Safety and Mission Success, Agency Information Technology Services,
    Innovative Partnerships Program, and Strategic Capabilities Assets
    Program.
      --The fiscal year 2010 budget request provides $412.7 million for
            Agency Management, which supports executive-based, Agency-level
            functional and administrative management requirements. Agency
            Management provides for the operational costs of Headquarters
            as an installation; institutional and management requirements
            for multiple Agency functions; assessment and evaluation of
            NASA program and mission performance; strategic planning; and
            independent technical assessments of Agency programs.
      --The fiscal year 2010 budget request provides $183.9 million for
            Safety and Mission Success activities required to continue
            strengthening the workforce, training, and strengthening the
            fundamental and robust cross-checks applied on the execution of
            NASA's mission, and to improve the likelihood for safety and
            mission success for NASA's programs, projects, and operations.
            The engineering, safety and mission assurance, health and
            medical independent oversight, and technical authority
            components are essential to NASA's success and were established
            or modified in direct response to many of the key Challenger
            and Columbia accident board recommendations for reducing the
            likelihood for future accidents. Included under Safety and
            Mission Success is the Software Independent Verification and
            Validation program.
      --The fiscal year 2010 budget request for Agency Information
            Technology Services is $150.4 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. NASA plans significant emphasis on continued
            implementation of five major Agency-wide procurements to
            achieve the following: (1) consolidation of IT networks leading
            to improved network management, (2) consolidation of desktop/
            laptop computer services and mobile devices to improve end-user
            services, (3) data center consolidation to provide more cost-
            effective services, (4) Agency public web site management to
            improve access to NASA data and information by the public, and
            (5) Agency business systems development and maintenance to
            provide more efficient and effective business systems. NASA
            will also continue to improve security incident detection,
            response, and management through the Security Operations
            Center.
      --The request for the Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) is $184.8
            million. IPP works with all four Mission Directorates to
            provide innovations meeting NASA's technology needs, and
            transfers NASA technology for broad Spinoff applications that
            improve quality of life and contribute to economic growth.
            Included in the IPP portfolio are: NASA's SBIR/STTR Programs
            seeking out innovative high-technology small businesses; a new
            Innovative Technology Project seeking high-impact revolutionary
            research and technology projects; a Seed Fund to address
            technology needs through cost-shared, joint-development
            partnerships; use of commercial flight services by the FAST
            program to demonstrate new technologies; Innovation Ambassadors
            to exchange ideas; and the Centennial Challenges prize program
            for the citizen inventor. IPP seeks partnerships through
            offices at all 10 NASA Centers.
      --Finally, NASA is requesting $29.4 million in fiscal year 2010 for
            the Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP). This program
            funds the costs required to sustain key Agency test
            capabilities and assets, such as an array of flight simulators,
            thermal vacuum chambers, and arc jets, to ensure mission
            success. SCAP ensures that assets and capabilities deemed vital
            to NASA's current and future success are sustained in order to
            serve Agency and national needs. All assets and capabilities
            identified for sustainment either have validated mission
            requirements or have been identified as potentially required
            for future missions.

    Conclusion
        The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for NASA supports
    the administration's commitment to deploy a global climate change
    research and monitoring system, funds a robust program of space
    exploration involving humans and robots with a goal to return Americans
    to the Moon by 2020 and explore other destinations, and funds the safe
    flight of the Shuttle to complete assembly of the ISS through its
    retirement, planned for the end of 2010. The fiscal year 2010 budget
    request funds continued use of the ISS to enable the Agency to develop,
    test, and validate critical exploration technologies and processes and,
    in coordination with our international partners, to make the ISS
    available support other government entities, commercial industry and
    academic institutions to conduct unique research in the microgravity
    environment of space. It will also stimulate private sector development
    and demonstration of vehicles that may support NASA's cargo and crew
    requirements. And it renews NASA's commitment to aeronautics research
    to address fundamental aeronautics, aviation safety, air traffic
    management, and mitigating the impact of aviation on the environment.
    NASA's diverse portfolio of science, technology, engineering and
    mathematics (STEM) educational activities is also aligned with the
    administration's goal of improving American innovation and global
    competitiveness. NASA looks forward to working with the subcommittee on
    implementation of the detailed fiscal year 2010 budget request.
        Madam Chair, thank you for your support and that of this
    subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the
    other members of the subcommittee may have.

                               HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Scolese. My areas of
    questioning will be in three categories, which of course, the
    Spaceflight and the reliability of our space transportation
    system for the remaining eight missions, space--the scientific
    endeavors that are supported in the President's budget which is
    really a robust commitment to science; and also, the
    acquisition issues.
        Let me go to the Spaceflight issue. The administration is
    committed to flying the Space Shuttle 8 more times to finish
    the Space Station. The budget assumes that this can be done by
    2010. The Shuttle program is a $3 billion a year program, so
    here is my question. One, can you envision a scenario where you
    would keep flying the Shuttle past 2010, and second, if you
    have to, if you can't complete the 8 missions, where will the
    money come from if the Shuttle flights have to be extended?
        Mr. Scolese. Yes, as I mentioned earlier----
        Senator Mikulski. In other words, do you have an ending
    date where you blow a whistle and the racks come down, and it's
    goodbye to the Shuttle?
        Mr. Scolese. No, we don't have an ending date. We are
    committed to flying the manifest, which is the remaining eight
    flights, we look at that regularly, almost weekly, to look at
    what our logistics chain is, and what's available and what the
    current situation is.
        As of today, we believe that we can complete those missions
    by the end of September 2010. Clearly, if we run into any
    serious difficulties, that we have to slip, and we would have
    to go beyond the September date.
        We don't foresee those at this stage of the game. We have
    margin in the date to September 2010. However, if we did have
    to slip, if it was a significant slip, months or more, we will
    have to find additional resources to cover that slip. And we
    would either have to come in and ask for an increase in the
    budget if we knew early enough about it, or we would have to go
    off and take resources from other parts of NASA.
        Senator Mikulski. But the administration is counting on
    these 8 flights to be done by 2010.
        Mr. Scolese. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. And there is no contingency plan beyond
    that, except, ``If we get to it, we'll deal with it?''
        Mr. Scolese. Well, as I was saying, based on what we see we
    believe--that we can make that date. We have not working
    towards a date, I need to be careful about that--but our
    planning indicates that 2010 is a very achievable date.

                                     SOYUZ

        Senator Mikulski. Right, well let me move ahead, then.
        Let's go to the Soyuz, which is our only way that, if our
    astronauts get into difficulty, we can return them safely.
        There's been much in the press about the Soyuz, number one,
    its ongoing reliability, and also what they're charging us to
    do--to be this standby vehicle, which we're absolutely
    dependent upon. Could you tell us, number one, what is in the
    budget to--how many--what are we, essentially, what is our--
    what is it that we're requesting of the Russians, how many
    Soyuz flight guarantees and, is the money in the budget to do
    that, and do you believe that those--that money is reasonable,
    or does it require some diplomatic negotiation?
        Mr. Scolese. Well, today we believe the money is
    reasonable. As you pointed out, we've been relying on the Soyuz
    for crew rescue since the initiation of the Space Station. So,
    it's always been a part of the program for that aspect of it.
    And, of course, following the Columbia tragedy, we were relying
    on the Soyuz to take our crew up to the Station and back.
        In the time between Shuttle retirement and the availability
    of Orion to take crew up and back, we will be relying on the
    Soyuz. We do not buy Soyuz, so to speak, we buy seats. We buy
    the training, the flight up, the flight back, and all of the
    logistics associated with a long-duration mission, and that's
    how we negotiate with the Russians. We're in the process of
    negotiating with them for the duration of that gap. And, to
    date, as we're saying, we're still negotiating, it's about $47
    million a seat, today. And the press has reported, but we're
    still negotiating, about $51 million for the future.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, my time has expired, I think that
    it goes through those. I do have workforce questions, and then
    science and acquisition, but let me turn to my colleagues and
    we'll come back for another round.

                               NASA'S SPEND PLAN

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Congress explicitly provided $400 million to the
    exploration program in 2009 economic stimulus bill to close the
    gap between the Shuttle and constellation programs, as I
    understand it.
        It's my understanding that NASA's spend plan included the
    redirection of $150 million for new initiatives related to
    commercial, crew, and cargo. Based on what little detail we've
    learned from NASA, it appears these funds are for entirely new
    activities that have not even been formally presented or
    reviewed by the Congress. What's going on, here? What other
    options were examined for Ares and Orion with the $150 million,
    prior to it being proposed for commercial studies, as I
    understand it. Tell us what's going on, here?
        Mr. Scolese. Certainly. Of the $400 million that was
    appropriated, $250 million is being used to accelerate and
    improve the situation for Ares and Orion, by procuring long-
    lead materials that we needed----
        Senator Shelby. Why do you need to use it all?
        Mr. Scolese. Well, I'll get to that. And certainly more
    would allow us to do more. We did look at the overall system
    when we came up with the plan, and we invested $150 million in
    commercial crew.
        It's broken into two fundamental categories--$70 million is
    something that will broadly support not only commercial
    activities, but all activities associated with the Space
    Station.
        One example of those is the human rating requirements.
    Human rating--we do these missions so infrequently that we need
    to go off and catalogue those so that anybody that wants to
    come to the Space Station will clearly understand what it is
    that we need to do. Anybody that wants to fly a NASA astronaut
    will understand how we want to fly.
        And then $80 million is available through competition, but
    first, we're going to go off and issue a broad area
    announcement to see if there is interest in providing
    commercial crew capabilities, and then we will--and only then--
    will we obligate those funds.

                           SECTION 505 OF THE OMNIBUS

        Senator Shelby. It's my understanding that section 505 of
    the omnibus clearly prohibits funding for new activities. Did
    Congress approve what you're doing, here, for the redirection
    of the funds?
        Mr. Scolese. Well, we submit it as part of our operating
    plan, so----
        Senator Shelby. But you hadn't had an approval of it, had
    you? By the Congress.
        Mr. Scolese. Not at this time.
        Senator Shelby. Don't you think you need--if section 505 of
    the omnibus prohibits funding for new activities, did you
    consider that?
        Mr. Scolese. Well, I think we had authority to go off and
    work commercial activities, and that's what we're trying to do
    here, and we submitted it as part of the operating plan. I'd
    have to go back and look at the details----
        Senator Shelby. Will you check that for the record?
        Mr. Scolese. I will check that for the record, sir. Yes,
    sir.
        [The information follows:]

                    Fiscal Year 2009 Recovery Act Spend Plan

        Section 505, Title V, Division B of the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
    Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-8), states that ``None of the funds
    provided under this Act, or provided under previous appropriations Acts
    . . . shall be available for obligation or expenditure through the
    reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates a new program, project
    or activity.''
        Since NASA's initial Operating Plan defined the activities that
    would be undertaken by the Agency in response to the American Recovery
    and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), the Operating Plan
    does not represent a re-programming from a previous baseline. The
    Recovery Act funds did not identify specific activities, so the initial
    Operating Plan represents the proposed baseline for these funds. While
    some of the specific activities may be new or identified uniquely for
    the first time, they are all supporting NASA's existing authorized and
    appropriated programs and projects.

                                     ARES-V

        Senator Shelby. Because some of the people on our staff are
    concerned about this.
        Ares-V delay--NASA has repeatedly stated that the
    constellation programs will continue as usual while the human
    space flight review is underway. While this may be true for
    Ares I and Orion, other facets of constellation--it's my
    understanding they're being held back. The heavy-lift vehicle,
    Ares-V, has been specifically delayed, pending an altered
    request due to the human spaceflight study, it's my
    understanding.
        If constellation is moving forward, then why is Ares-V, the
    heavy-lift rocket, that is essential to landing a man on the
    Moon, being delayed? This is unusual business. What's going on,
    here?
        Mr. Scolese. Well, you're absolutely right--Ares-V is
    absolutely critical if we're going to get humans back to the
    Moon, and outside of low Earth orbit, plus for other
    activities. We are not stopping work on Ares-V. There is
    continued work----
        Senator Shelby. You're still committed to Ares-V, aren't
    you?
        Mr. Scolese. I'm sorry.
        Senator Shelby. NASA's committed to Ares-V.
        Mr. Scolese. Oh, absolutely. We have to have that type of a
    vehicle, Ares-V, in order to get out of low-Earth orbit. And,
    in fact, work being done on Ares I is directly applicable to
    Ares-V, the solid rocket motor, the J2X engine in the upper
    stage, plus we have, you know, individuals at our space flight
    centers, also continuing to work on Ares-V.
        Clearly there could be implications as a result of the
    review that's going on this summer, but as the President's
    budget said, they want to return humans to the Moon, and
    there's only one way to do that, with the heavy-lift launch
    vehicle, and Ares-V is the one that's on the books today.
        Senator Shelby. How much of the $30 million for Ares-V in
    the 2009 bill will you spend? Will you spend that this year?
        Mr. Scolese. I expect that we will, but I'd like to get
    back to you for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                     Ares-V

        The fiscal year 2009 Operating Plan contains $30 million for the
    Ares-V. That money is expected to be fully expended in 2010.

        Senator Shelby. You going to get back in the next 10 days
    or so?
        Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Does the action by NASA at that point,
    dealing with Ares-V delay indicate there's already a pre-
    determined outcome, as it relates to Ares-V?
        Mr. Scolese. No. I mean, as I said earlier, the only way
    we're going to get out of low-Earth orbit is with a vehicle,
    and a substantial vehicle, and Ares-V is the one that----
        Senator Shelby. You've got to have it, hadn't you?
        Mr. Scolese. You have to have that type of a vehicle, yes
    sir.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Voinovich.

                                 COST OVERRUNS

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I'd like to first commend the Agency for a decision that
    they made a couple of years ago, and that was in regard to the
    Plumbrook facility. I was quite impressed with the fact that
    when I talked with Mr. Griffin about that facility, he was not
    knowledgeable about its potential or its condition, and the
    Agency had--along with Lockheed Martin--decided they were going
    to do something else in terms of testing the CEV.
        And I was impressed with the fact that he came out, and
    they looked at it, and NASA is investing, I think, some $54
    million into that, which will do the testing for a lot of the
    things that NASA's doing, and also put it in the position where
    they can take in some commercial work. I think that kind of
    work on your part is very important.
        I'm also concerned about the fact that Senator Shelby said,
    some of these overruns. And what does NASA do about these?
    What's does NASA do about these in terms of contractors, do you
    hit them over the head, trying to get them to perform? Is there
    any provision that says that if they have these overruns and
    don't make good on what they say they're going to do that they
    won't get further business from NASA?
        Mr. Scolese. Overruns--we work those very carefully, and
    yes, there are penalties for overruns, but we also have to
    understand what the reasons for them are. Sometimes it's due to
    underestimates in the beginning that we, indeed, plan for. And
    sometimes it's due to the fact that we change requirements. As
    you know, NASA is a research and development agency, we do
    things, typically, for the first time. And that requires
    learning as we're going along, so if we adjust the requirements
    it is not an overrun by the contractor, it is us adjusting the
    requirements, and adjusting the contract.
        Senator Voinovich. How often is that the case?
        Mr. Scolese. A fair amount. It happens relatively
    frequently. In fact, we tend to be the mission integrator, so,
    that will happen.
        But, the budget that you want to look at is the NASA
    budget--how much do we say, it's going to cost to do a
    particular mission. And then we work with our contractors, when
    a contractor does not perform there are penalties. There are
    severe penalties, including terminating the activity. We
    clearly report on contractor performance, so that future work
    is judged by past performance.
        But, we have to look first to see if we're changing
    requirements or if they're not performing.
        Senator Voinovich. You're confident that you're doing what
    anyone else would do in terms of these contractors?
        Mr. Scolese. Yes, I am.

                            U.S.-RUSSIA PARTNERSHIP

        Senator Voinovich. Okay.
        Recently I was in Brussels and heard Sergiev Levrov, the
    Russian Foreign Minister give a speech, and I was quite
    concerned about the tone of this speech. And I just wonder, in
    your negotiations with the Russians, in terms of the use of the
    Soyuz, have you seen any difference in attitude on their part,
    in terms of them being above-board, objective negotiators, or
    has this--I don't know--paranoia set in with their scientific
    agencies that you're working with?
        Mr. Scolese. No, we haven't seen it. Russia has been a very
    good partner with us on the Space Station, and in our space
    activities, and they continue to be a very reliable partner.
    So, we have not seen that.
        Senator Voinovich. In other words, you're dealing on a
    professional basis, with scientists, and the foreign policy
    thing hasn't entered into those negotiations? You feel that
    they're being fair and above-board?
        Mr. Scolese. Yes, I mean, we're linked very tightly on this
    Space Station. They can't survive without us, and we can't
    survive without them. And we work very closely together, and
    it's been a good and productive relationship over the last
    several years.

                           TEN HEALTHY CENTER CONCEPT

        Senator Voinovich. This undertaking of looking at the
    future of NASA, I think it would be very important for you to
    share with the folks that are doing this that, many of us are
    very happy with the 10 healthy center concept. And you know
    darn well there are people out there that are holding their
    breath, and hyperventilating, what are they going to get and
    what are they going to do? And I think the sooner that that's
    made clear to everyone, just what the deal is going to be, I
    think all of us will be feeling a whole lot better about
    things.
        So, if you could share that with--if you have any input
    from your organization, that was a--something that we really,
    all of us supported, you did a good job of assigning missions
    to the various agencies, and we'd like to know that that's
    still part of the program.
        Mr. Scolese. I certainly will. As you know, it's the people
    that make this all work, and we have some of the best people in
    the world, if not the best people in the world, in developing
    our spaceflight systems--human robotic and aeronautics. And we
    have some great capabilities in all of our centers, and we
    should utilize those to the fullest, and I'll make that known.
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.

                       SHUTTLE WORKFORCE TRANSITION PLAN

        Senator Mikulski. Senator Voinovich raised some really
    important issues around workforce assurance, and also the
    acquisition and cost overrun issue.
        Let me come back to the workforce issues--one, with the
    retirement of the Shuttle. As you know, it is a source of great
    concern in the communities, particularly in Florida and in
    Texas. We're talking about thousands of people who've really
    served the Nation with fidelity and reliability, I mean, they
    really kept the Shuttle going. And the Shuttle's had
    challenges, including the return to flight after the
    Challenger.
        Could you tell us where NASA is in the workforce planning
    for this transition, and number two, is NASA, or the
    administration also in consultation with our colleagues and
    also the Governors of those respective States--it's a big deal.
        Mr. Scolese. Yes, and you're absolutely right--the people
    that have built and maintained this Shuttle have done an
    incredible job and are truly dedicated. We see it every day. We
    see it with the flight that's going on today. We're going to
    rely on them until the last Shuttle returns to Earth.
        Senator Mikulski. And they have to stay?
        Mr. Scolese. And they have to stay.
        Senator Mikulski. You know, so we're going to go ahead. I
    mean, I'm going to the edge of my chair, I'm going to sound
    like Bill Nelson, launching.
        Mr. Scolese. I think we probably very much agree on this.
    They are doing an incredible job, and we are doing a number of
    things to retain and retrain--where that's needed--the
    workforce. We need them, as I said, to continue to fly the
    Shuttle safely, and we're relying on that.
        So, in some cases we're doing retention bonuses, we're
    encouraging people to stay on that may want to retire or leave
    for other reasons.
        Also, we are looking at people engaged in work on Orion and
    Ares or other elements of Constellation, so they can look,
    today, and know they're working on the Shuttle, and know that
    they're already working on the next-generation system, so that
    they know they will have a job when they are done.
        For those people that may not be, available or may not be
    able to continue with the program, we're looking at other
    activities, other avenues for them, it may be at other centers,
    it may be retraining. That's what we can do within NASA.
        Outside of NASA, we're working with our contractors. We
    don't have as much insight into that, but they're trying to do
    the same thing there, as well, we're working with them to
    provide retention bonuses, to encourage them to offer people
    opportunities to work, not only on the Shuttle, but on the
    next-generation system, that they may be operating, whether
    it's Orion, or Ares, or a component of that.
        So, we're working, across the board to retain the workforce
    and retrain the workforce and allow for a smooth transition for
    those that may have to leave the Shuttle program at the end.

                                   RETENTION

        Senator Mikulski. I feel very strongly about this, and
    again, knowing first of all, the fact is that we need them now.
    And we need them to stay. And if I were in the room with Peter
    Orzag, working on this, and the President's science advisor,
    looking at the future of NASA, I'd say, ``You know, everybody
    dumped buckets of money into the banks because they said we
    need their talent,'' well, they had no place to go. But here,
    we have these wonderful people who have a job that they're
    doing, and a job that we need them to do.
        So we're going to ask for quarterly reports from NASA on
    how this transition is going on. And I gather--because it will
    be a phase-down, but also for the retention now. And do you
    think that there are sufficient resources in your
    appropriations request to retain the workforce that we have
    during these last flights, taking us into the end of the fiscal
    year 2011, and to really properly retain them as we also are
    looking at those who wish to retire, and those who wish to be
    retrained, and those who wish to be redeployed within NASA.
        So, those are your, kind of, three tools, isn't it?
    Retirement, retraining, and redeployment?
        Mr. Scolese. Yes. And we do believe we have the resources,
    as I mentioned, retention bonuses and other activities to do
    that, but we're working specifically to make sure that we have
    people that can cover any issue that may come up with the
    Shuttle and its associated systems. So we are taking a very
    active look at making sure that we retain those--that dedicated
    workforce.

                                    SCIENCE

        Senator Mikulski. Right. And, as you know, now with 19
    years, the Hubble servicing is coming to an end, and we have
    300 people who have really served the Nation well in Hubble,
    and we also want that same attention to detail with retention,
    and also looking at what are the other projects at Goddard.
        So, we would like to be in touch with the NASA
    Administrator on these issues.
        Let me go to science. And let's go to the President's
    desire, we believe, to have a green science initiative, I
    believe, is the way of talking about it.
        We are so proud, here, in this subcommittee, that we fund
    80 percent of all climate change science. We are the green
    committee. Senator Boxer and I have had talks about this.
    NASA's portion is $1.2 billion, including science that comes
    from Earth-observing spacecraft, and then there is NOAA that
    also does very important work on climate research--$325
    million.
        So, $2 billion is spent by the Government on climate change
    science, but $1.5 billion comes from this subcommittee.
        Let me go to what NASA's job is, and I would like, if you
    could, outline an inventory of the NASA projects in the budget
    request that will contribute to climate change science?
        Mr. Scolese. Certainly. As you know, we have a number of
    on-orbit satellites that are, today, contributing to our
    understanding of climate change, they're supporting not just
    NASA researchers, but researchers throughout the world.
        They're also supporting the operational agencies, as you
    mentioned, NOAA, USGS, other Department of the Interior
    organizations--Forestry, Agriculture. In addition, we have
    several missions in development, I could list some of them--the
    global precipitation mission is one, the Landsat data
    continuity mission is another. We have the decadal missions
    that are coming up, and we're very aggressively working to meet
    those.
        In addition, we have relationship with NOAA that is very
    productive, where we've been producing the polar orbiting
    environmental satellites. We launched the last one, NOAA and
    Prime in January, and it's working well on orbit, it's been
    turned over to NOAA. We have a GOES-O launch scheduled for
    later in June, that is coming up. We have the NPOESS
    preparatory project, which is we are working in collaboration
    with, not only NOAA, but also the Department of Defense, on the
    next-generation weather satellites.
        And while the Department of Defense is developing the Prime
    satellite, we were developing the preparatory project, which
    was intended to test out the capabilities, but now has become
    critical to the operational weather and climate communities,
    and we hope to launch that in the next year or so.

                             PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

        Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, that's impressive.
    That is really impressive. I think what the committee would
    appreciate, and also the Congress would appreciate, as it looks
    at climate change legislation, for us to have an inventory of
    these very important climate projects. We're also going to ask
    for the same inventory from NOAA.
        But what we want is not only a list of the projects, Mr.
    Scolese, but what is the information that we're going to get
    that will be useful to policymakers to really come up with
    really sound legislation to deal with the global climate
    crisis.
        As you know, there's been incredible debate over the last
    couple of years about science, junk science, and everybody's
    got their arguments about the climate change situation. We
    believe science should speak for itself, and that the facts of
    science should speak for itself.
        But, what the American people will want to know is, say,
    okay, we're going to spend $1.5 billion on science, and we've
    been spending it over time, and it's been enormously
    impressive. We would not know today about the global climate
    crisis if it were not for NASA. And then the very important
    work of NOAA, and our National Science Foundation.
        As we've met with environmental ministers from around the
    world, the size and scope of the NASA endeavor has enabled them
    to also do their science. What would be useful to us in the
    debate is to know what we can continue to contribute for our
    colleagues, so that decisions, recommendations, policy
    initiatives and policy flashing lights would come from our
    science. So, could we have that from you? Because the people
    really need to have that in plain English.
        We can hear GOES, NPOESS, they all have those names, et
    cetera, and I think it's often not seen. But we're ready to do
    legislation on the global climate crisis.
        Which then takes me to something else. After--presuming we
    do have legislation--do you see that it is our science that
    will also be able to provide ongoing monitoring to see whether
    we truly are making a difference? Will there need to be new
    things, or will what we're doing now be able to carry us, say,
    for the next 5 or 7 years?
        Mr. Scolese. Well, I think what we're doing now will
    probably carry us for the next 5 to 7 years, the answer to your
    question is will we be able to do monitoring? Absolutely. We're
    doing that today in various areas. For instance, in ozone
    monitoring, we use satellites to measure the ozone, and have
    seen, you know, an improvement in the reconstitution of the
    ozone layer.
        So, yes, our satellites can go off and provide a lot of
    that information, and will continue to do so. And I expect, as
    the decadal survey missions indicated, that we will need some
    new capabilities, as we gain new understanding and want to look
    at different effects, be they, solar effects or Earth effects,
    or, other climatological effects that we need to deal with.
        So, yes, our satellites can, and will, continue to do that,
    and as you know, our data systems are out there providing that
    data to researchers, as I said, around the world. So, as I
    said, we're getting an objective look at the data, as well, to
    inform the decisions of the policymakers.
        [The information follows:]

                             Global Climate Change

        Provide an inventory of climate projects. Identify the types of
    information from them that would be useful to policy makers, with any
    ``flashing lights'' that would come from science results. Assess the
    sufficiency of monitoring activities over the next 5-7 years.
        See Attached.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think it's impressive. I'm really
    proud of NASA and what they've done in this. And they have been
    truly a tremendous voice to--not only scientists--but for those
    who have stewardships about their individual nations' futures.
    And NASA is really loved and appreciated because of what it
    does do, along with NOAA and the National Science Foundation.
        This, though, takes me then to other science, which is in
    addition to our Earth science, planetary science, astrophysics
    and heliophysics. Is there concern at NASA that, with our
    emphasis on green science, and also on dealing with the global
    climate crisis, that other scientific projects will be crowded
    out?
        You know, to keep the shuttle going, there was a lot of
    rearrangement of the money, and science suffered over the
    years. The President has made a significant investment in this
    year's budget, and we really appreciate this, because it's then
    not left up to the Congress to restore science, which it has
    been in the last decade.
        Mr. Scolese. We believe we have a balanced program and, of
    course, as you know probably better than most, there's always
    many more missions that people want to do, many more
    investigations.
        Senator Mikulski. Every science wants their own rocket
    ship.
        Mr. Scolese. But we believe we have a balanced program, and
    we'll be looking at that, and have it informed by the decadal
    surveys that are coming up, to establish those priorities and
    determine what we can do. I think you'll see heliophysics is
    going up, astrophysics is staying about the same, and planetary
    is about the same. So Earth science and heliophysics have a
    little bit better, and the others are kind of balancing out to
    historical percentages.

                            NASA EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS

        Senator Mikulski. Which then takes me to education. What is
    in the President's request for the NASA educational efforts?
        Mr. Scolese. I was going to say $125 million and David
    tells me it's $126 million. So, we have $126 million in that
    budget. It covers everything from, support for formal
    education, K-12, universities, grants for graduate students and
    undergraduates, as well as informal education, in terms of,
    support to museums and other activities along those lines. And
    we can get you the specifics.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I understand that it is $126
    million, that there's been a reduction of $43 million. Do you
    know why, and what will go by the wayside with that $43 million
    cut, or would you like to go back and talk to your team?
        Mr. Scolese. I think I need to go back and talk to my team
    about that.
        [The information follows:]

                             NASA Education Program

        The fiscal year 2010 budget request for NASA's Education Program is
    $126.1 million, up from $116.0 million in the fiscal year 2009 request.
    As part of NASA's fiscal year 2010 budget request, the Agency preserved
    high-priority investments in Higher Education STEM (science,
    technology, engineering, mathematics) Education, K-12 STEM Education,
    and Informal STEM Education.
        Higher Education STEM Education includes STEM Opportunities,
    Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP), Space
    Grant, and Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
    (EPSCoR). These projects will build, sustain, and provide a skilled,
    knowledgeable, diverse, and high performing workforce to meet the
    current and emerging needs of NASA and the Nation.
        K-12 STEM Education includes three main areas. STEM Student
    Opportunities engage and help retain students in STEM disciplines
    through flight opportunities, hands on research and engineering
    experiences, and increased knowledge of NASA science and technology
    content. STEM Teacher Development uses NASA's content and resources to
    provide pre-service and classroom teachers with learning experiences to
    build STEM skills and better motivate students to pursue STEM careers.
        Informal STEM Education supports NASA Center efforts involving
    scouting groups, community based organizations, and other informal
    education providers who use NASA content to engage their audiences in
    STEM experiences. NASA also supports the Nation's museums, science
    centers and planetariums in developing innovative educational
    experiences that help the American public understand NASA's exploration
    mission.
        A summary of NASA's fiscal year 2010 request for the Education
    Program follows:

                                               FISCAL 2010 BUDGET REQUEST
                                                  [Dollars in Millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal     Fiscal
                                         year 2008  year 2009    Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                           actual    enacted   year 2010  year 2011  year 2012  year 2013  year 2014
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2010 President's             146.8      169.2      126.1      123.8      123.8      123.8      125.5
     Request...........................
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Higher Ed. STEM Education..........       92.0      107.7       80.6       80.6       80.6       80.7       80.7
    K-12 STEM Education................       41.3       47.5       43.3       41.0       41.0       41.0       42.7
    Informal STEM Education............       13.5       14.0        2.1        2.1        2.1        2.1  .........
    Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget      146.8      115.6      126.1      123.8      123.8      123.8  .........
     Request...........................
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Education..........................      146.8      115.8      126.1      123.8      123.8      123.8  .........
    Total Change From Fiscal Year 2009   .........       53.6  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
     Request...........................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Compared with NASA's fiscal year 2009 budget request, the fiscal
    year 2010 budget request includes increases for:
      --Higher Ed. STEM Education (+$14.202 million)
      --K-12 STEM Education (+$4.365 million)
      --Informal STEM Education (+$0.113 million)
        NASA's fiscal year 2010 budget request does not include
    continuation of fiscal year 2009 Congressional augmentations for:
      --Global Climate Change Education (fiscal year 2009 +$10 million)
      --K-12 Competitive Educational Grant Program (fiscal year 2009 +$16
            million)
      --Science Museums and Planetarium Grants (fiscal year 2009 +$7
            million)
      --NASA Visitors Centers (fiscal year 2009 +$7 million)
      --Space Grant (fiscal year 2009 +$12.268 million)
      --EPSCoR (fiscal year 2009 + $11.72 million)
        NASA will be able to address the intended outcomes of these
    initiatives, as well as NASA's stated education goals, through programs
    for which the Agency is requesting fiscal year 2010 funding.

        Senator Mikulski. Let me say why I'm raising this. I'm a
    big supporter, as you know, of the National Academy of
    Sciences, and this is why we so like the decadal studies, that
    we're guided by--in our endeavors and what we should be
    exploring and doing through the National Academy of Sciences,
    then it's not out of politics or State interest and so on, that
    we're really working for the Nation.
        And, in the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'', another
    Augustine-led effort was, we talked about how could America
    maintain its competitive edge, how could we continue
    innovation? And they talked about a triad of increased money
    for research, really a focus on education, K-12, to make sure--
    even earlier--that our young people focused on so-called STEM
    disciplines, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
    and that we have an innovation-friendly government, patent
    reform, tax policy.
        Education, here we're doing all this fantastic research, we
    have a President that's making major investments in education,
    and through his own charisma, and that of the First Family, are
    creating, I think, a renewed interest in education. Their own
    girls, the way they feel about the rest of America. How can we
    use now, the power of NASA, while we're doing the research
    part, and our job of being innovative-finally, to be part of
    education?
        I feel that education at NASA has not been as sharply
    focused, and perhaps not as wise in its use of dollars, when
    we've got not only a great story to tell about education, but a
    great way to motivate our young people to be interested in
    that. I want to hear from the astronauts because of their
    courage, the spectacular thing they've done, but I want people
    to think, ``Wow, there's a telescope, that I use the pictures
    in my classroom, and there's an astronaut that maybe I'm going
    to be, or maybe I'm going to work at Houston and work that's
    going to happen on the space station, to find a cure for breast
    cancer,'' which is challenging one of our most beloved
    colleagues here.
        So, you see where I am? I'm into motivation, I'm into
    inspiration, using this story. So, where--what do you see about
    this?
        Mr. Scolese. Well, I agree, clearly, the program, as I
    mentioned it, it tries to encompass all those things in various
    forms, with our teacher training programs that we do. We try
    and bring teachers down to launches, so that they can see
    what's actually going on, along with going out and providing
    forums where teachers can come in for the summers, for
    instance, and participate at NASA Centers, to learn about what
    we do and how we do it. That's sort of on the formal training
    program of the teachers.
        We have the grants students in minority universities, as
    well as in other universities, to encourage undergraduate and
    graduate work. As you mentioned about, the informal education,
    you know, encouraging museums in getting NASA content and
    activities out, so that the broader public can see them.
        And of course, directly, as our people go out there and
    talk to students, astronauts, scientists, engineers are out
    there talking at schools as well, and we encourage that as part
    of what we do as an agency, because we do realize the strong
    motivation that people see when they get to meet somebody that
    flew in space or somebody that works at NASA and does some
    interesting stuff.
        I, myself, even had an opportunity to talk to a bunch of
    seventh grade students just a little bit ago----
        Senator Mikulski. Harder than testifying before Congress?
        Mr. Scolese. Yeah, they ask some interesting questions. But
    the good thing, and this is going to be kind of funny, is that
    the NASA portion of it, which I did, was rated against
    everybody else, and we beat out the mortician and the fireman.
    So, we ended up doing pretty good in the view.
        But, actually is something that when people can get out
    there and see the looks on the students when they see what we
    can do, is really great.
        So, I think we're doing all of those things, and we'll get
    you a better detailed list.
        [The information follows:]

                             NASA Education Program

        The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for NASA's
    Education Program is $126.1 million, up from $116 million in the fiscal
    year 2009 request. The Office of Education administers national
    education efforts that draw on content from across the Agency. It also
    disseminates education content and activities developed by the Mission
    Directorates, Centers and education partners.
        The NASA Education Program addresses three outcomes:
      --to strengthen NASA's and the Nation's workforce;
      --to attract and retain students in STEM disciplines; and
      --to engage Americans in NASA's mission.
        As part of the fiscal year 2010 budget request--Education projects
    have been reorganized into three programs to better meet the needs of
    targeted audiences:
      --Higher Education STEM Education;
      --K-12 STEM Education; and,
      --Informal STEM Education.
        NASA's Higher Education STEM Education budget supports the targeted
    development of individuals who are prepared for employment in
    disciplines needed to achieve NASA's mission and strategic goals.
    Graduates of these projects have had in-depth and hands-on experience
    with research and engineering that support NASA's scientific and
    exploration missions. Experiences include NASA/industry internships,
    scholarships, competitions, and engineering design work. These
    students, drawn from national audiences, are interested in, prepared
    for, and able to contribute immediately to the NASA/aerospace
    workforce.
        The Office of Education budget builds academic infrastructures and
    supports NASA-grounded research that builds the scientific and
    engineering competitiveness of the Nation. These investments also build
    the future STEM workforce by providing future workers the opportunity
    to contribute to research of interest to NASA. Target audiences in
    research capability-building include community colleges and Minority
    Serving Institutions (MSI's). This type of efforts is funded through
    both the HE and the MUREP budgets.
        K-12 STEM Education activities are based on NASA missions and
    stimulate excitement in students. Educator training and professional
    development programs improve teacher proficiency and confidence in
    teaching NASA and STEM content. Education technologies that foster
    educator training and student engagement opportunities are developed
    through the K12eED Program, but the tools and infrastructures serve all
    NASA Education programs.
        NASA Informal STEM Education programs build STEM-interest in the
    general public by providing NASA exhibits, workshops, and special
    activities at museums, science centers, planetariums, and the
    activities of community organizations and clubs.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think that's very interesting.
    What I would like to ask, is that you make available, the Dr.
    Joyce Winterton, Assistant Administrator for Education, to meet
    with our staff so that we really have an idea of the
    comprehensive scope that you are doing, and how we can be
    supportive of that in, again, looking at the National Academy,
    ``Rising Above'' the Gathering Storm. And when they looked at
    the education of students, they looked at exactly what you
    said, teacher training, and how we can help with that. And
    then, hands-on kinds of things for young people to be able to
    either see or witness, and so on the inspiration part of NASA.
        And number three, what is it about the development of
    curriculum and so on that you can help? One of the things that
    really so touched me about what NASA did--and I'll just tell
    this little story.
        Dr. Weiler, as you know, Mr. Space, science, and Goddard,
    et cetera, used part of his education budget to work with the
    National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore. And working with
    the National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore and the
    National Air and Space Museum--the space part of the
    Smithsonian--they developed a textbook for blind children on
    astronomy. And it's called ``Touch the Invisible Sky.''
        Now I have seen the textbook, and the Federation is
    headquartered in Baltimore, and what that has meant to boys and
    girls, and what it's meant to parents, where their children can
    learn science, and actually touch the Hubble, and also think
    about careers in science, where particularly those things in
    the digital world that they could participate. This is--this is
    stunning, and it will--it impacts thousands of lives. So, we
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Scolese. Thank you.

                              ACQUISITION PROCESS

        Senator Mikulski. I'm going to have one other set of
    questions related to acquisition, and then--what time--what
    time do we link up with Atlantis? Twelve twenty-nine? I'm
    afraid to let everybody go, it's my Catholic school education,
    that if you go, you won't come back.
        And, here's Bill Nelson, Bill we've got a few minutes,
    here. We're actually not going to be early, but we're just
    asking questions about cost difference.
        Do you want to explain to Senator Nelson where we are while
    I finish?
        Senator Voinovich raised the question about the acquisition
    process. Do you think we need a Commission on this? Do you
    think with acquisition cost overruns and schedule upages, we
    need a national Commission, where an effort like the Pentagon
    has just completed with their acquisition?
        Mr. Scolese. I'm not sure we need a national Commission on
    it. I can tell you what we are doing. The Government
    Accountability Office, of course, has been reviewing NASA, and
    we recognized the issues that are associated with acquisition
    and acquisition reform. One of our biggest is the early cost
    estimates for our missions. There tends to be a lot of
    exuberance and enthusiasm for the missions, and as a result, we
    tend to say we can do more for less than we can really do it.
        So, we're working very hard to fix that very early portion
    of it. And that's a combination of working with our colleagues
    in the external community, in the science community, as well as
    working internally to develop better cost estimates, and we're
    doing that. With the National Academy, we're sitting down so
    that they can develop better cost estimates, we can work with
    them so that we can develop them. We can develop cost estimates
    that can be compared against each other, as opposed to having
    one estimator do it one way, one group do it another way, we
    can get them all on common footings, so that we can look at
    them in terms of a common base, to understand which is really
    more expensive or more risky than the other.
        In addition, we've revised our acquisition strategy. We now
    have essentially three meetings that we do before we go off
    with a procurement. One to look at what it is that we really
    want to accomplish and do we have the resources to accomplish
    it, both within NASA and in the industry as a whole. Is it
    available to us? Because often times we find out that we start
    something before we have the people or the resources available
    to support it. And then we develop the best way to go off and
    procure that, whether it be a fixed-price activity, and in-
    house activity, where it's built within NASA, or whether we go
    out of house to contractors.
        In addition, we're looking at how we monitor our
    performance, so that we can catch problems early, rather than
    finding them out late in the game when they're very expensive.
    So we're having monthly reporting, so that we can go off and
    look at all of those activities. And of course, we're working
    with industry and academia to go off and address those from
    their perspective as well.
        So, that's what NASA is doing, and we're working with our
    colleagues in other agencies, most closely with NOAA, of
    course, because we buy some of their satellites.

                             HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you, again. I want to just
    thank you again for your service. I'm not going to recess the
    committee. What I'm going to do is ask you some questions about
    the Hubble.
        Mr. Scolese. Okay.
        Senator Mikulski. Then I'm going to, essentially, as we get
    ready to link up with Atlantis, talk about the biographies of
    the astronauts, and I'm going to ask our colleague--we're happy
    to be joined by our colleague, Senator-astronaut Bill Nelson,
    to, perhaps while we're waiting to hook up, you might talk
    about what it feels like to be an astronaut. Everybody sees it,
    they see it weightless, et cetera, but you've actually known,
    in our conversations, it can be pretty dangerous. And so, by
    that time, we'll be ready to hook up with them, and we would
    also invite you to engage in the conversation with them.
        So, we're getting ready now and lining up to connect to our
    astronauts, on the Atlantis mission.
        You've watched Hubble, and I am so proud of Hubble. You
    know, it's gone where no telescope has gone before. It's taken
    us to pictures of galaxies, and the great information of the
    Hubble has gone out to people in school--the scientists and
    school children around the world, whether it was in south
    Baltimore or South Africa. And, what I would like, if you could
    share with us, from the science viewpoint, what you think have
    been the major accomplishments of the Hubble mission?
        Mr. Scolese. Probably the most significant accomplishment,
    as I look around, is the inspiration it's given to people to go
    off and pursue science, engineering, math, technology careers.
    You look at every textbook and you see a Hubble image, whether
    it's, of some planetary nebula or some nebula someplace, or
    just the Hubble Space Telescope with an astronaut floating next
    to it. It just has an incredible encouragement to people, to go
    off and do those things, because it does represent an icon.
        When Hubble was first launched, you remember, more than
    anybody else, the difficulties that we had when it was first
    launched, and the perseverance----
        Senator Mikulski. You mean when it went up and it wouldn't
    work?
        Mr. Scolese. When it went up and it wouldn't work. I didn't
    want to say it quite that way. It was the techno-turkey of the
    time, yet it was resurrected.
        Senator Mikulski. That was my phrase.
        Mr. Scolese. Yes. It's been resurrected and I think people
    have seen that and recognized that with hard work and
    perseverance, you can overcome almost anything. And watching
    our crews, just this week and in previous weeks, we tend to get
    most of our attention with Hubble missions, because they are so
    dynamic, they are so interesting.
        We can practice and practice and practice, yet at some
    point in a mission, you always know that something's going to
    come up that wasn't quite the way you practiced it. And I'm
    sure Mike Massimino how he had to use some elbow grease to
    remove a handrail.
        So, I think that's probably our biggest contribution,
    because I see it when I talk to children and I see it when I
    talk to people who are now graduates from college, that, you
    know, looking at the Hubble. In my generation it was going to
    the moon. I think in this generation it's been, you know, what
    the Hubble Space Telescope can do.
        And then, of course, I can't do the justice that an Ed
    Weiler could do to how it's revolutionized our understanding of
    the universe. But it clearly has done that. It's rewritten
    every textbook that's been out there in astronomy and
    cosmology, and to some extent, in physics as well.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I understand that the Hubble has
    led to 7,000 scientific papers, and that the information on
    Hubble, even that which continues to be analyzed, could fill
    two Libraries of Congress, and has taken us to the discovery of
    new galaxies, and also the whole issues of black holes and dark
    energy, things that will help us understand the universe, and
    in understanding the universe, understand physics, quantum
    physics, tremendous scientific expansion----
        Mr. Scolese. All those.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. That then enable us, also,
    to go to far more practical implications. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Scolese. Absolutely. I'm surprised it's only 7,000,
    considering all the things that it's done.
        Senator Mikulski. The other thing that was required, in
    addition to the astronauts, was these tools. When one goes into
    space to do this work, because what the Hubble did on this
    mission, was five space walks, and that's what we're going to
    talk with them about, five space walks that took hours. It's
    just not like suiting up and walking out and--did you do space
    walk or did you stay inside?
        I think I'd stay inside, too. Could you imagine trying to
    find a little space suit in, you know, in 14 petite? Well, they
    did it for Sally and some of the others.
        But anyway, could you tell us about the technology that was
    developed to be able to refurbish the Hubble?
        Mr. Scolese. Just an incredible number of tools. For every
    mission, one has to think about, taking a screwdriver with a
    ski glove on, and a pressure suit, where you're in a balloon
    trying to move in order to do this work. So, it's not at all
    like putting a suit on or just having a glove on, it's
    pressurized, and you're fighting that each and every time you
    move. And the astronauts can describe it a heck of a lot better
    than I can describe it. But that's the limitation that one has
    to work with.
        And then think about the fact that you can't see
    everything. You've got this hood over your head. So, you have
    to develop tools that will allow the crews to be able to work
    with those limitations, limitations in viewing, limitations in
    their ability to grasp things. So every mission, you have to
    come up with a new set of tools, a new set of guides to allow
    them to see where they want to go. And this mission was no
    different, to go off and do that.
        Then you have to remember you have to take the power with
    you. It doesn't come along, you can't plug it into the wall
    like our Black and Decker, these are largely battery-operated.
    So while they're floating around in space, they have to have
    these tools. When they remove a screw, they have to capture it,
    otherwise it's going to go floating around in space. Because on
    this mission, and on other missions, we repaired things that
    weren't designed to be repaired in space. If you design it to
    be repaired in space, you'll have big fasteners that you can
    grasp with a gloved hand and everything will stay in place.
        We were removing hundreds, 150, 160-some screws, little
    screws, that if they got into the wrong place----
        Senator Mikulski. Talk about having a screw loose.
        Mr. Scolese [continuing]. Yes--they could damage the
    telescope or damage the orbiter or damage the suit that the
    astronauts were in.
        So, in addition to being able to remove the screw, we had
    to make sure that that screw didn't float away and go someplace
    we didn't want it to go. So, we had components that allowed us
    to capture those screws.
        And then, as we mentioned, think about pulling a circuit
    card out of your computer, if you've ever had to go off and do
    that, put in a board for graphics if you wanted to do gaming or
    something along those lines. And think of how small that is. We
    had the astronauts retrieve that.
        Needless to say, they couldn't use their gloved hand, so we
    had to develop a tool that would allow them to go in there,
    grasp it, pull it out, and then put a new box in.
        So, there's an incredible amount of effort with the
    engineers on the ground developing these tools and
    understanding what's going on, working with the astronauts to
    refine those tools so that they can use them effectively. And
    then, while the mission is going on, adjusting when things
    change.

                        SPACE SHUTTLE CREW INTRODUCTION

        Senator Mikulski. And it's the big deal.
        What I'd like to do now is--first of all, that was an
    excellent description--I'd like to talk about these astronauts
    and who they are, as we get ready to connect to them, a few
    words about, really, what they did, just as you've described
    it. And while we're waiting, in the 4 minutes for the hookup,
    as you said, this is not a Swiss watch factory, to connect to
    them.
        Well, first of all, there were seven astronauts, and of the
    seven, three had been on previous Hubble experiences. One is
    Scott Altman, he's the commander of the mission. He flew the
    Shuttle during its capture and release of Hubble. He was also
    the commander of the last Hubble servicing mission, in March
    2002, when we installed that Hubble advanced camera that made
    the mission worthwhile.
        The other is John Grunsfeld, who's considered like one of
    the fathers or godfathers or grandfathers of the Hubble. He led
    the space walking team, and he's conducted three space walks,
    in addition to the five others he did on previous serving
    missions. He's done two previous Hubble missions, in December
    1999 and March 2002, which was so important, again, to reboot,
    reinvigorate Hubble.
        And then there's Mike Massimino, who will be leading the
    conversation today. Now he's conducted two space walks, and
    guess what? He's the first astronaut to Twitter from space. Oh
    boy, engaging thousands of people and he also was the one who
    persevered during Sunday's nail-biting, hold your breath, oh my
    gosh, Sunday space walk. And I've never been so glad ever to
    hear someone say, ``Disposable bag, please,'' which said that
    he had accomplished it. He had to deal with a stuck bolt, a
    tool battery that died, but he kept on going. Mike flew on the
    last Hubble servicing mission in March 2002, again, when we did
    that advanced camera.
        Now, we've had three other Hubble astronauts on their first
    shuttle mission. Megan McArthur, one of the women on the trip,
    operated the shuttle's robotic arm during the capture and
    release of the rejuvenated Hubble. She became an astronaut in
    2000. She has an unusual background. Dr. McArthur has a Ph.D.
    in oceanography and worked at the Script's Oceanographic
    Institute, so, from inner space to outer space.
        We have Drew Feustel, who conducted three space walks, and
    on the third space walk--that was Saturday--he and Grunsfeld
    installed that new spectrograph that looks deeply into the
    early universe how profound. He became an astronaut in 2000, he
    began his education at a community college, he worked as an
    auto mechanic, and now he's a mechanic in space. He then went
    on to an undergraduate degree and a masters in Earth science
    and geophysics from Purdue, and a Ph.D., specializing in
    seismology, from Queens University in Canada. These are
    incredible backgrounds.
        Then there's Greg Johnson, the pilot of the mission. He
    orchestrated the photographic and video documentation of the
    mission. He became an astronaut in 1998. He's a Navy captain,
    he landed on 500 carriers, and we're going to count on him to
    land safely and smartly tomorrow, at around 10 o'clock eastern
    standard time.
        And last, but not at all least, Michael Good, who conducted
    two space walks, including Sunday's, which lasted more than 8
    hours. It is the sixth longest NASA space walk in history. He
    comes as Air Force colonel and a test pilot.
        We're about 2 minutes away, and as you can see, this is
    really an incredible amount of talent, and also, talent and
    dedication and courage and diligence. So, that's who we'll be
    talking to in space, the very first hearing from space. And as
    we get ready for our uplink, I'd like to turn to our astronaut-
    Senator, Bill Nelson.
        And Senator, if you could share, maybe, your thoughts on
    this occasion, of the rejuvenation of Hubble, and your own
    experiences in space?
        Senator Nelson. Madam Chairwoman, this is----
        Senator Mikulski. And this is the way we ought to be at the
    table, I might add, authorizers and appropriators, not only
    celebrating, but really working together for the good of the
    country.

                            THE ASTRONAUT EXPERIENCE

        Senator Nelson. And thank you for this opportunity, Madam
    Chairwoman. This is an incredible example of the interlinking
    of humans and machines, to accomplish great things. As you were
    reading the biographies of these astronauts, they are
    exceptionally qualified people, they are, all of them,
    overachievers, and yet, they are just the visible example of a
    space team that is, every one of them, overachievers.
        A lot of that team is in your State, at the Goddard Space
    Flight Center, and this particular mission is symbolic of the
    expertise at Goddard, that putting together all of those with
    the team that gets them up there, that creates the vehicle to
    get them there, and then to do the work once in orbit.
        Now, in this case, these astronauts have not had a minute
    to spare, every minute is scheduled. As a matter of fact,
    usually it's very typical of crews that they have to fight for
    time to get to the window to gaze back at this incredible
    creation that we call our home, the planet. In our particular
    case, I had to cheat on my sleep to find time, just to go and
    float in front of the window, and see our home.
        One of the greatest examples of this teamwork, came out of
    tragedy, Madam Chairwoman, and that was Apollo 13.
        Senator Mikulski. Right.
        Senator Nelson. We thought that that was going to be three
    dead men on the way when that explosion occurred on the way to
    the moon, and yet that incredible team, on the ground, working
    with the astronauts in real-time, who's lives were on the line,
    we brought them back and brought them back safely.
        And so, what these new lens, these new computers, these new
    instruments on Hubble are going to do for us, is help us gaze
    out even further, to sample cosmic rays and understand in
    greater detail, what is this infinite place called the
    universe, and how do we relate to it. And that's why I'm so
    excited for the success of this mission.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

                        SPACE SHUTTLE ATLANTIS TESTIMONY

        Senator Mikulski. Well, that was really eloquent, and it
    shows how--to be an astronaut, you have to be daring, you have
    to be courageous, you have to be agile.
        So, anyway, that was a great job, and now we'll just wait
    to hear from Houston, a familiar sound to you.
        Now remember, we're going to be able to see the astronauts,
    but they can't see us. This is going to be for them, an audio
    link.
        Mr. Ventry. Atlantis, this is Houston, are you ready for
    the event?
        Astronaut. We are now ready for the event. Voice check.
        Mr. Ventry. Atlantis, this is Don Ventry at the U.S.
    Senate, how do you hear me?
        Astronaut. Space Shuttle Atlantis has you loud and clear,
    sir.
        Mr. Ventry. Atlantis, please stand by for Senator Barbara
    Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Hello to all of our astronauts on Space
    Shuttle Atlantis. You are taking part in something quite
    historical, not only have you given the Hubble a new life, but
    you're going to give the Senate a new lease on life. You are
    the very first astronauts to testify from space, at an official
    hearing.
        I'm joined by my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, a brother
    astronaut to you. I'm going to lead off the conversation by
    first of all, thank you for this stunning and successful
    mission. As you closed the hatch on the Hubble, you have now
    opened a new door to a new era of scientific discovery.
        Hubble is the people's telescope, and it wanted to have
    another chance to be able to educate a new generation of
    scientists and school children. What you've done to refocus and
    recharge the Hubble Space Telescope is appreciated. We
    appreciate the daring and the difficult and the dangerous
    things that you've done to install the cameras, the computers,
    the batteries, and the gyroscopes.
        Hubble is the greatest scientific instrument since
    Galileo's telescope, but you are some of the greatest
    astronauts that we could get hooked up with.
        We want to hear from you about what those experiences are
    like, but before I do, Bill, Senator Nelson, did you want to
    say something to your brother astronauts in space?
        Senator Nelson. Hey guys, I wish I were up there with you.
        Senator Mikulski. So, Mike Massimino, are you the one
    that's going to lead it off?
        So, okay, well that works, we see you very clearly. I feel
    like--if only the Hubble is going to work as good as this link.
        So tell us, what was it like to be up there? What was the
    greatest nail-biting thing that you had? What were those space
    walks like? What's it been like up there?
        Mr. Massimino. Well, Senator, I'd just say, first of all,
    we're very honored to be able to appear before the committee
    today. It's an honor for us, it's also an honor to be part of
    this mission. Many people worked very hard on it, including all
    the folks at Goddard, and of course, your efforts, Senator,
    keeping Hubble alive, are much appreciated. We're a beneficiary
    of that vision that you share with all. Hubble is a part of the
    spirit of exploration that I think is an American dream we all
    share. So, thank you so much.

                             HUBBLE REPAIR MISSION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, tell us, what was the most--for all
    of you to jump in--what were some of the most thrilling moments
    of the mission, what were some of the most nail-biting? We sure
    liked that disposable bag comment, because we knew you had been
    able to fix that whole computer situation. Mike?
        From what I see, we're getting a lot of enthusiasm.
        Mr. Massimino [continuing]. Ground trying to help us. When
    I wasn't able to get the bolt to turn for the handle, to take
    the handle off, to continue with the repair of the instrument,
    the space telescope imaging spectrograph, and we had practiced
    this so many times as a crew, to do this repair, and never
    expected--we try to think of every problem we could come up
    with, and we were prepared, I thought, for everything, but we
    never expected that particular bolt to give us trouble. And
    when it did, and when we started getting the suggestions from
    the ground, I really thought that we were in trouble. I
    couldn't see how we were going to be able to continue the
    repair at that point.
        But, the folks at the Goddard Space Flight Center did a
    great job, along with the folks at the Johnson Space Center,
    and people from around the country, I'm sure, were all
    involved, trying to figure out how we could do this. And we
    didn't have much time because we were running late into this
    space walk, but they figured out a way for us to fix it, we got
    the tools we needed, and we were able to get access to the
    board by breaking off the handle in a way that we would never
    have imagined to do it. When we launched, we never thought we'd
    have to do that, but we did it.
        And for me, that was a feat, that we could continue----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, listen, Space Shuttle Atlantis,
    we're having a hard time hearing you.
        Mr. Massimino [continuing]. Nail-biters out there, to be
    sure.
        Mr. Johnson. Senator Mikulski, this is Greg Johnson, the
    pilot. It, too, is an honor to testify before your
    subcommittee. I can tell you, from the flight deck, Scooter and
    I and Megan were watching, and every single EVA, to me, was a
    nail-biter. I was trying to photo document them, some of it
    with IMAX, and the two points that really come to mind are
    Bueno closing the door when the arm started to slip, as he
    pushed as hard as he could.
        And then Mike Massimino going to get contingency tools, in
    areas that he hadn't really gone to before, and then breaking
    that bolt. You should have seen the action out the back window,
    it was--I'm sure it was better up close, but from the pilot's
    perspective, I was on the edge of my seat the--all five EVAs,
    actually.
        Senator Mikulski. Dr. McArthur, did you want to say
    anything?
        Mr. Johnson. And I guess I'll let Megan comment, and then
    if you have any more questions for----
        Dr. McArthur. Yes, ma'am.
        Hello, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Nelson, and all of the
    Senators on the committee. It's great to be chatting with you
    today about our experiences. I think you've heard a lot about
    how the EVAs were pretty much all nail-biters, and that's
    certainly true. Those guys did great work out there though, and
    we're real proud of them.
        Operating the arm, that was my primary task during the
    flight, and it actually went very nominally, very much as
    expected and as we had trained, it's pretty incredible to me to
    be thinking about this amazing stuff that we're doing, moving
    this giant telescope around in space with a robotic arm, and
    have it be nominal. So, I just take away that sense of wonder
    at doing the incredible and having it be nominal, that's sort
    of the big impression that it has made on me.

                             HUBBLE'S CONTRIBUTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. Well, guys--first of all, thank you. It's
    really exciting to hear you. And we really, again, want to
    salute your daring and your bravery and your courage.
        And this takes me to a question about all of your work,
    personally. You know, you've been training for this now for
    several years. You've had the support of devoted families and
    we've had delayed takeoffs, setbacks, challenges in space. My
    question to you is, when you've literally put your lives on the
    line for this scientific endeavor. Could you tell me why you
    wanted to service the Hubble, and why, knowing at times, the
    uncertainty of the risk involved here, that you were willing to
    risk your lives to fix an aging telescope who seemed like its
    best days were behind it?
        Astronaut. Senator, it's really wonderful to appear before
    your committee and all the Senators there today. I really
    appreciate you taking the time to hear us.
        You know, Hubble really has struck a fundamental chord in
    the human hearts around the world. It would be hard to find a
    K-12 school room anywhere in the United States of America that
    doesn't have a Hubble picture up on the wall.
        From a science perspective, as you opened the hearing, it's
    probably the most significant scientific instrument of all
    time, in terms of its productivity. And astronomers try and
    answer, using Hubble, fundamental questions that we've had,
    since the beginning of human history. Where do we come from?
    Where are we going, what's the history of the universe, what is
    the stuff that we're made of, how was it made, what's the
    universe made of? All these very, deep philosophical questions
    that everybody has a curiosity about.
        That's what Hubble and the other science, basic science
    that we do in this great country is all about. And Hubble is at
    the pointy end of that. And so, from a perspective of risk, we
    all take risks every day, driving up 295 to Baltimore, there's
    a certain risk there every morning in the commute. And we don't
    think about those risks, we think about the risks when, the
    stakes are a little bit higher, as they are for our space
    program. But when you look at the importance of what we do,
    things like Hubble, the International Space Station, our
    exploration program, our climate observing, observing the
    Earth, the dynamic Earth, all of these things are so very
    important to our country and to the world, that the risks are
    definitely worth it.
        Astronaut. And I would just add, quickly, that we're not
    leaving an aging telescope, we're leaving a newly refurbished
    telescope, with new instruments, instruments that have been
    repaired, a telescope that is now at the apex of its
    capabilities, and will be for a long time to come.
        Senator Mikulski. Bill, did you have a question?
        Senator Nelson. Hey guys, I just want you to know that you
    have made the spring in the step of every American a little bit
    bouncier by what you all have accomplished. And, what you said
    about us understanding this universe that we are a part of, and
    where did we come from, is now going to be better understood by
    the success of your mission. So, congratulations to all of the
    team.
        Senator Mikulski. I, too, want to conclude this
    conversation, by again thanking you for your dedication, your
    sense of duty, and you really--when we talk about the Hubble
    and giving it, essentially, a new life and a new way of going
    and seeing the universe, you've touched our hearts, and you've
    also made history.
        We want to wish you a very safe landing, and we look
    forward, Senator Nelson and I, to welcoming you at the Capitol,
    where we can give you a great big Hubble hug, and welcome you
    back home.
        This concludes our part of the conversation.
        Mr. Massimino. Thank you very much, we've enjoyed it.
        Mr. Ventry. Atlantis, this is Houston ACR. That concludes
    the event, thanks.
        Mr. Massimino. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Wow, wasn't that a hearing?
        And, Senator Nelson, we were glad you were here.
        Senators may submit additional questions for this
    subcommittee. We're going to request NASA's responses within 30
    days.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        This subcommittee will now stand in recess until Thursday,
    June 4, at 9:30 a.m., when we'll take testimony from the
    Director of the FBI.
        Before I put down the gavel, wasn't that just wonderful? I
    mean, don't you all feel that that was pretty exciting?
        So, thank you, again, Administrator Scolese, and thank you
    for your job, thank you for your service, and let's go where no
    Senate's gone before, and get this job done.
        [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., Thursday, May 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
    June 4.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:31 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Lautenberg, and Shelby.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER III, DIRECTOR

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. Today the
    Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee will hear from FBI
    Director Mueller on the FBI's budget priorities for fiscal year
    2010. We welcome the Director of the FBI, who is no stranger to
    this subcommittee, having now been the Director for 8 years.
        This hearing will not only ascertain the appropriations
    needs of the FBI, but I also thought it would be a good time to
    take stock of where we are, not to in any way step on the toes
    of the Intel or Judiciary Committee. But the FBI is a wonderful
    and unique agency. It has iconic status in the minds of the
    American people. The American people count on the FBI to
    protect them from those people that have predatory intent
    against them, whether it's in streets and neighborhoods,
    whether it's when they go to get a mortgage, whether their
    children are on the Internet, or whether their a terrorist who
    would like to take down the United States of America.
        We're going to do something unique today. We're going to
    have a public hearing on the appropriations and then we will
    also have a classified hearing. For those not familiar with
    what the Congress did after 9/11, when we had to see how we
    would deal with the threat of terrorism, the question was would
    we create a new agency, kind of an MI-5, or would we do an
    agency within an agency?
        We created within the FBI a very robust effort on fighting
    terrorism. Many of the things to be discussed regarding what
    tools the FBI needs to meet that national mandate must occur in
    a classified setting. So for the first time CJS will hold a
    classified hearing, and we will look forward to hearing what
    the FBI does.
        I have been concerned for some time. Because that work is
    unseen, as it must, and so it's not often understood by
    policymakers and those who formulate the budget. So today we
    will be in an appropriate classified, secure forum where we can
    get to know more rigorously what the FBI's doing and then what
    we need to do. As part of the national mandate we gave to them,
    what is the national mandate we need to give to ourselves to
    make sure the FBI has any and all appropriate resources?
        We're pleased that the President today is abroad making as
    many friends as we can, but we also know that there are many
    people who, as I said, have this predatory intent.
        Today and at this particular part of the hearing, we want
    the FBI to know how proud we are in how they fight to protect
    Americans. They dismantle organized crimes and drug cartels.
    They combat drug violence. They solve kidnapping and extortion
    cases. They rescue the vulnerable from illicit traffickers.
    They protect children against pornography on the Internet and
    they investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials. We
    want to make sure the American people fully appreciate them and
    we want to make sure that they're fully appropriated.
        As I said, the FBI was given a new mission after 9/11.
    There are essentially what we call four decision units--a
    wonderful way of talking about it when we talk about the FBI.
    I'm just going to review them briefly, go over the President's
    budget, and then want to turn to Senator Shelby, who I know has
    also a defense hearing.
        There are four decision units, meaning how the FBI is
    organized for budgetary purposes. There is the intelligence
    unit, which is requesting $1.64 billion. This is $150 million
    over the President's fiscal 2009 request. This Intelligence
    Directorate includes field agents, virtual translation center,
    language analysis, and foreign terrorist tracking service.
        We also have a counterterrorism and counterintelligence
    unit. That is a $3.4 billion request, 9 percent over fiscal
    2009. Counterterrorism means detecting and defeating terrorist
    operations before they occur--it's a pretty big job, and that's
    what we'll talk about--making sure that weapons of mass
    destruction are not built or detonated or imported to the
    United States. They're dealing now with the new threat of cyber
    computer intrusion, which goes to the President's cyber
    security initiative, and the foreign counterintelligence
    program and the critical response.
        That which the American people are most familiar with is
    the criminal enterprise and Federal crime decision unit. This
    is a $2.8 billion request, $130 million above the fiscal 2009
    appropriated level. The criminal enterprise deals with cyber
    crime, organized crime, trafficking, children's pornography,
    and of course the public corruption cases.
        Then there is the criminal justice services unit, which is
    $427 million, $8 million over last year's $418 million. The
    criminal justice services unit includes crime information on
    stolen property, the national computerized fingerprint check
    system, which local governments rely on so much, the FBI
    forensic laboratory, and many others.
        We know that the FBI has new initiatives on the home front
    that we have asked them to take up. Senator Shelby has been a
    real leader on this in the Banking Committee. Senator, I'd like
    to commend you for that, on mortgage fraud. This subcommittee
    was one of the first to blow the whistle, if you will, to our
    colleagues or, shall we say, sound the horn on alert, that
    there was fraud as part of this economic meltdown, as thousands
    and thousands of Americans lost their homes. It was one thing
    to lose your home because you had lost your job; it was another
    thing to lose your home because of fraud.
        So the FBI is asking for 50 new agents and 61 new forensic
    accountants, for a total of 225 agents, 42 fiscal analysts, and
    61 forensic accountants to investigate complex financial
    investigations. We look forward to seeing if that is adequate
    enough.
        We also know that we continue our very strong efforts in
    the area of child pornography and how that then ties in with
    the other aspect in our bill, with the missing persons unit.
        The FBI also has responsibility for investigating Federal
    civil rights law, which means hate crimes, human trafficking,
    and access to Federal clinics. We have agents working on this
    and we need to continue work on it. I was appalled when Dr.
    Tiller was assassinated in a church on Sunday. I believe it is
    a hate crime. I'm glad that the person who assassinated him has
    been arrested. I look forward to a speedy trial and I look
    forward to those who use violent words to promote violent
    actions taking responsibility for it. But we're glad that the
    FBI is on the job for investigating hate crimes.
        There are many other issues that we want to go over, but we
    want to hear more from Director Mueller than from ourselves.
    I'd like to turn to Senator Shelby for his statement. Senator,
    I would like to also yield to you for a first round of
    questions because we've got defense today. Well, we've got two
    defense hearings, one in the defense and then another kind of
    defense. So why don't I turn it over to you, and use such time
    as you want and ask any questions you want.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
    will put--with your permission, I'll put my questions in the
    record if I could.
        But, Mr. Director, thank you again for appearing before the
    committee, but also thank you for the job you're doing as the
    leader of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
        I want to begin by also thanking the men and women of the
    FBI who worked to protect this Nation. We're indebted to them
    for the sacrifices they make to protect our country.
        The FBI's role has changed dramatically, Mr. Director, as
    you know because you've been in the leadership there since 9/
    11. The mission now includes fighting terrorism, foreign
    intelligence operations, cyber crime, public corruption, white
    collar crime, and violent crime. Since 9/11 the FBI has shifted
    approximately 2,000 agents from the Criminal Division to
    address the expanding counterterrorism role for a good reason.
        The FBI's request for fiscal 2010 is $7.9 billion and,
    while this is a $560 million increase over the 2009 funding
    level, many vital areas within the FBI remain underfunded, Mr.
    Director, as you know and we've discussed. With the shift of
    thousands of agents from the FBI's criminal mission to
    counterterrorism, a significant burden has been placed on our
    State and our local law enforcement agencies.
        Mr. Director, while I'm grateful for the Bureau's efforts
    on thwarting terrorism--we all are--a 2 percent increase to the
    Criminal Division's budget is hardly a significant improvement
    in the investigative assets that you can provide as the head of
    the FBI to assist State and local partners to fight crime in
    our communities. We know that's a challenge on money and
    otherwise.
        Because the Federal investigative assets are spread so
    thin, the concerns raised in the May 2007 inspector general
    report entitled ``Coordination of Investigations by the
    Department of Justice Violent Crime Task Forces'' are
    troubling. The report states that some DOJ components have
    nationwide policies that require coordination of task force
    operations. The ATF, the DEA, and the Marshall Service entered
    into memorandums of understanding that require their task
    forces to coordinate their operations. Yet the FBI to date to
    my knowledge has no policy of coordination.
        To quote an FBI task force manager in the report, ``The FBI
    only participates in joint investigations as the overall head
    agency and, because the FBI is the lead agency, the FBI special
    agents share information in accordance with FBI policy.'' I
    understand that, too, to a point.
        Although this report was released in May 2007, 2 years ago,
    the situation does not appear to some participants to have
    improved. I continue to receive numerous complaints from
    various law enforcement agencies about the FBI's unwillingness
    to share information or encourage their State and local
    partners not to share with other Federal partners. I think this
    needs to be addressed and I think this is something you could
    do.
        A lack of cooperation and refusal to share information
    helped lead to the worst terror attack in U.S. history. As the
    leader of the top law enforcement agency in the world, I hope
    you will take the initiative and at least address this problem
    the best you can.
        Finally, the Terrorist Explosives Device Analytical Center,
    TEDAC, at Quantico, which we've talked about yesterday in my
    office, provides forensic analysis to the IEDs recovered in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. The need to exploit these devices, as
    you're well aware of, in a timely fashion for the military is
    critical to the safety of our soldiers, and it could be
    critical to our own citizens. This past Tuesday I met with
    Lieutenant General Metz, the Director of the Joint Improvised
    Explosives Device Defeat Organization. He showed me a picture
    of an FBI warehouse filled with boxes of evidence, stacked to
    the ceiling waiting to be processed. You can see it here.
        It is clear that the current TEDAC at Quantico--and you've
    acknowledged this--is undersized, overwhelmed, and lagging.
    According to the Department of Defense, approximately 80
    percent of the material submitted to TEDAC remains unprocessed
    and sits in warehouses. Most of the material sent in 2008 and
    2009 has not even received basic inprocessing and photography.
    At the FBI's rate of processing evidence, the Department of
    Defense indicates that it will take 20 years or more to clear
    the backlog. 20 years, that's too much, as you and I both
    discussed.
        I believe that it's conceivable that somewhere within the
    warehouse of evidence, in one of those boxes, there might be a
    trace element of a fingerprint that could identify a terrorist
    bomb maker. By identifying that terrorist, he could be put out
    of commission and the lives of our warfighters and perhaps our
    citizens could be saved.
        In the past 4 years the committee has provided, as we
    talked yesterday, the FBI with approximately $86 million toward
    construction of a larger and more state of the art TEDAC. I
    hope that we can keep addressing this and build that facility,
    and I know you've indicated support for it.
        Madam Chairman, I have a number of questions I'd like to
    submit for the record. I don't want to eat the time up. I do
    have a defense meeting I have to go to on Appropriations. But I
    will like to join you and the Director and others at your
    closed hearing later.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
        Director Mueller, the floor is yours.

                         STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER

        Mr. Mueller. Allow me to start by saying good morning,
    Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Shelby. It's an honor again to
    be here with you.
        As you know, the FBI has undergone and, as you indicated,
    both Senators, we've undergone unprecedented transformation in
    recent years, combining better intelligence capabilities with a
    longstanding commitment to protect the American people from
    criminal threats. In so doing, we remain mindful that our
    mission is not just to safeguard American lives, but also to
    safeguard American liberties.
        I want to thank the chairwoman and ranking member and other
    members of the committee for continuing support over the years,
    ensuring that the FBI has the adequate tools and resources to
    meet these threats from global to regional to local, or be
    those threats from a criminal, a terrorist, or a spy.
        I would also like to thank members of your staff--Gabrielle
    Batkin, Erin Corcoran, Eric Chapman, Art Cameron, Goodloe
    Sutton--for their efforts in this regard and working with us on
    these budgets over the years.
        The FBI's fiscal year 2010 budget request represents an
    outline of the resources needed for the FBI to succeed in its
    mission to keep America safe, while recognizing our
    responsibility to be good stewards of public funds. While my
    written statement and our budget request goes into greater
    detail, I do want to highlight a few specific areas, including
    cyber, economic crime, surveillance, and the FBI's
    infrastructure.
        Certainly the threats currently present in the national
    security arena continue to be a grave concern. Terrorism
    remains our top priority and we cannot become complacent. We
    must continue to guard our country's most sensitive secrets
    from hostile intelligence services. In addition to other
    measures, our budget request includes essential surveillance
    resources to combat these threats.
        Our Nation's cyber infrastructure is also vulnerable to
    compromise or disruption, be it from a terrorist, a spy, or an
    international criminal enterprise. We must continue working to
    stay ahead of those using new and innovative methods to attack
    our networks, and our request does include resources to that
    end.
        As each of you pointed out, these are by no means our only
    priorities. Economic crime, especially mortgage fraud and
    corporate fraud, presents a serious threat to our Nation. We
    are currently investigating more than 2,400 mortgage fraud
    matters, more than double the number from 2 years ago. We are
    investigating more than 580 corporate fraud cases and more than
    1,300 securities fraud cases. We must continue our efforts in
    this area as it grows in magnitude and in scope.
        Historically, the Bureau handled emerging criminal threats
    by transferring personnel within its Criminal Branch to meet
    the new threat. In response to the September 11 attacks, the
    FBI permanently moved approximately 2,000 of our criminal
    agents to our National Security Branch, as has been pointed
    out. This transfer has substantially improved our
    counterterrorism and intelligence programs and we have no
    intention of retreating from preventing another terrorist
    attack on American soil.
        But, it has also reduced our ability to surge resources
    within our Criminal Branch to meet existing and emerging
    threats. I do wish to work with you to restore that balance to
    the extent possible, and in doing so the Bureau must still
    maintain its commitment to other key areas.
        Public corruption continues to be our top criminal
    priority. The FBI has 2,500 pending public corruption
    investigations. In the last 2 years alone, we have convicted
    nearly 1,700 Federal, State, and local officials, and we must
    continue to hold accountable those who abuse the public trust.
        Violent crime is also a substantial, serious concern. The
    citizens of many communities continue to be plagued by gang
    violence and gun crime. Since 2001, our gang cases have doubled
    and the spread of international gangs has increased. The FBI
    continues to combat this threat through more than 200 safe
    streets, gang, violent crime, and major theft task forces
    across the country. I must say as an aside to the comments made
    by Senator Shelby, I do believe that these task forces have a
    reputation of cooperating fully with our Federal and our State
    and local partners. Particularly since September 11, 2001, our
    relationships with Federal, State, and local partners have
    improved substantially around the country, although of course
    there will always be anecdotal evidence from this individual or
    that individual that it is not all it should be.
        So too must we continue to work with our State and local
    counterparts to combat crimes against children, the most
    vulnerable members of our communities.
        Finally, I want to update you on key changes we have made
    within the FBI's infrastructure to more effectively meet
    today's challenges. We know that the FBI's best and strongest
    asset is our people. So we have paid attention to recruiting,
    training, and maintaining a work force with skills necessary to
    meet the challenges of today's mission. Our hiring goals
    include special agents, intelligence analysts, IT specialists,
    linguists, professional staff. This year we have received more
    than 450,000 applications and have already extended over 5,500
    job offers.
        We are also focusing on other portions of our
    infrastructure from information technology to training.
    SENTINEL, our new case management tool, is being developed and
    deployed on time and within budget. The FBI Academy at Quantico
    continues to train not only new special agents and intelligence
    analysts, but also hundreds of State, local, and international
    law enforcement partners each year, forging essential and
    lasting partnerships in a world where crime and national
    security threats are increasingly global.
        In closing, I would again like to thank the committee for
    your support to the men and women of the FBI and I look forward
    to working with the committee on these and other challenges
    facing our country.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Madam Chairwoman, other members of the committee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look forward to
    answering your questions. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III

        Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and
    Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
    before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2010 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.
        As you are aware, the FBI celebrated its 100th Anniversary this
    past July. When the FBI was created in 1908, we had 34 investigators
    and a budget of about $6 million. Now, the budget request before you
    today includes over 30,000 employees and over $7 billion. Among the
    factors in this increased budget is the substantial growth in the FBI's
    mission over the past 100 years. We have gone from investigating
    gangsters and spies to terrorists and cyber intrusions. 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 8 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.

                              2010 BUDGET REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2010 budget for the FBI totals 32,883 positions and
    $7.9 billion, including program increases of 1,389 new positions (407
    Special Agents, 321 Intelligence Analysts, and 661 Professional Staff)
    and $581.1 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
    fortify our intelligence and law enforcement activities.
        Last year, at the urging of Congress and other oversight entities,
    the FBI altered its budget strategy to identify key end-state
    capabilities based on current and anticipated future national security
    and criminal investigative threats. This capabilities-based approach to
    planning ensures that the FBI possesses the capabilities and capacities
    necessary to address these threats. The FBI's 2010 budget strategy
    builds upon both current knowledge of threats and crime problems and a
    forward look to how 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 to remain vital and effective in meeting future
    threats and crime problems.
        The FBI is continuing to refine the definition of end-state
    capabilities, including appropriate ``metrics,'' as requested by the
    Appropriations Committees.
        The FBI continues to align its budget with the Strategy Management
    System (SMS) to ensure new resources are tied to our strategic vision
    and goals. Through the SMS, the FBI has struck an appropriate balance
    between its national security and criminal missions, and between short-
    term tactical efforts and longer-term strategic initiatives. The 2010
    budget builds upon the initiatives delineated in last year's budget and
    will focus on five critical topics.
        I will highlight some key FBI topics below.

                                  INTELLIGENCE

        Over the past few years, the FBI has taken several steps to
    transform its intelligence program. Most recently, the FBI has been
    working to examine how we could accelerate this transformation and
    identify areas where we should focus our efforts. We established a
    Strategic Execution Team (SET), comprised of both headquarters and
    field personnel, to help us assess our intelligence program, evaluate
    best practices, decide what works and what doesn't work, and then
    standardize operations across the Bureau.
        With the guidance of the SET, we restructured 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 that were identified, we
    have developed a single model under which all FIGs will function to
    increase collaboration between intelligence and operations, 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.
        This consistent process better allows us to share intelligence with
    our partners in more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies around the
    country. We also collaborate closely with our international
    counterparts. And as the world continues to shrink and threats continue
    to migrate across borders, it is more important than ever for the FBI
    to be able to develop and disseminate information that will assist our
    partners.
        We have already implemented these recommendations in 24 of our
    field offices, and anticipate full rollout to the remaining field
    offices by December.
        I cannot emphasize enough that targeted intelligence-gathering
    takes time, and requires patience, precision, and dedication. It also
    requires a unity of effort both here at home and with our partners
    overseas. Intelligence enables us to see the unseen and to discover new
    threats on the horizon. Yet even the best intelligence will not provide
    complete certainty, given the nature and number of threats we face.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget includes 480 positions (41 Special
    Agents, 279 Intelligence Analysts, and 160 Professional Staff) and
    $70.0 million to bolster the FBI's intelligence program. These
    resources will, over time, enable the field offices and headquarters to
    better leverage investigative and analytic capabilities to develop and
    maintain a common understanding of the threat issues they currently
    face. Moreover, these requested resources will allow us to better
    identify emerging threats, asses those threats, and act against them.

                                     CYBER

        Protecting the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-
    technology crimes is one of the FBI's highest priorities. In 2002, we
    created the Cyber Division to handle all cybersecurity crimes. Today,
    our highly trained cyber agents and analysts investigate computer
    fraud, child exploitation, theft of intellectual property, and
    worldwide computer intrusions.
        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 U.S. 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,
    disrupt, and investigate illegal computer-supported operations
    domestically. The FBI's intelligence and law enforcement role supports
    response to cyber events at U.S. government agencies, U.S. military
    installations, and the private sector. Because of this, the FBI has
    partnered with other Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement
    partners with complementary missions to establish the National Cyber
    Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF). The task force is a
    collaborative environment and was designed to identify, mitigate,
    disrupt, and investigate cyber threats. Within the operation of the
    NCIJTF, the FBI serves in a leadership, management, and operational
    role. In this capacity, the FBI is not the sole owner of operational
    activities, allowing operations to be conducted under the leadership of
    other member agency's authorities. The FBI's fiscal year 2010 budget
    includes 260 positions (107 Special Agents, 42 Intelligence Analysts,
    and 111 Professional Staff) and $61.2 million to ensure the FBI has the
    technological infrastructure to conduct investigations and to turn
    seized network information into actionable intelligence products that
    can be used across the Intelligence Community to allow the government
    to move from a reactive to a proactive cyber attack response.

                                    CRIMINAL

        As you know, the current financial crisis has taken its toll on the
    U.S. financial markets and the American Public. A portion of this
    crisis is due to fraud and faulty accounting practices. The FBI has led
    and taken part in these types of investigations before. If you will
    recall, the FBI investigated the Savings and Loan (S&L) Crisis of the
    1980s, which crippled our economy, and also led the Enron
    investigation. Many of the lessons learned and best practices from our
    work during the past decade will clearly help us navigate the expansive
    crime problem currently taxing law enforcement and regulatory
    authorities.
        The FBI currently has approximately 250 Agents addressing the
    crisis that could result in over $1 trillion in losses, including
    losses due to fraud and other criminal activities. Last year alone,
    financial institutions wrote off over $500 billion due to losses
    associated with the sub-prime mortgage industry. With the passage of
    recent legislation that includes billions of dollars
        being infused into the U.S. economy, including the Housing and
    Economic Recovery Act (HERA), the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
    of 2008, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and other asset
    relief programs, we anticipate an increase in fraud. In addition to the
    agents that are currently on board, the FBI's 2010 budget includes 143
    new positions (50 Special Agents and 93 Professional Staff) and $25.5
    million to assist the FBI in combating mortgage and corporate fraud.
        We also face significant challenges with regard to violent gangs, a
    nationwide plague that is no longer relegated to our largest cities.
    Since 2001, our violent gang caseload has more than doubled, and in
    fiscal year 2008 alone increased by 273 percent. These cases resulted
    in over 7,792 arrests, 2,839 convictions, 716 disruptions of violent
    gang activity, and 59 dismantlements of neighborhood gangs in fiscal
    year 2008.
        As discussed in the 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment, produced
    by our National Gang Intelligence Center and the National Drug
    Intelligence Center, gangs are increasingly migrating from urban to
    suburban and rural areas and are responsible for a growing percentage
    of crime and violence in many communities. In addition, much of the
    gang-related criminal activity involves drug trafficking. We routinely
    work with our State and local partners to combat this pervasive threat,
    including over 140 Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Forces across the
    country dedicated to identifying, prioritizing, and targeting violent
    gangs. Task forces are extremely important in making the best use of
    available resources, and are used as a force multiplier to increase
    productivity and avoid duplication.

                                   TECHNOLOGY

        Although the FBI's information technology systems have presented
    some of our greatest challenges, they have also resulted in some of our
    most significant improvements in the past 8 years. The FBI has made
    substantial progress in upgrading its information technology
    capabilities to help us confront current threats and mission needs.
    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.
        Although I have hired a new Chief Information Officer, Chad
    Fulgham, our priorities have not wavered. As you are aware, the FBI has
    dedicated significant effort towards SENTINEL, a case management system
    that will revolutionize the way the FBI does business. SENTINEL will be
    a fully automated, web-based case management system designed to support
    both our law enforcement and intelligence mission. The system, when
    completed, will help the FBI manage information beyond the case focus
    of existing systems, and will provide enhanced information sharing,
    search, and analysis capabilities. SENTINEL will also facilitate
    information sharing with members of the law enforcement and
    intelligence communities. Phase I of SENTINEL was deployed Bureau-wide
    in June 2007. Phase II is being developed in increments, with the first
    segment to be delivered this April and continuing throughout the
    summer. The remaining phases will deliver additional capability through
    the end of development, in summer 2010.
        The FBI is one of the few agencies that operate on three enclaves--
    unclassified, Secret, and Top Secret. We are continuing to deploy UNet,
    our unclassified Internet-connected system, to field offices
    nationwide. When complete, we anticipate approximately 39,000 UNet
    workstations will have been deployed to all FBI locations. We are also
    continuing the rollout of Blackberries to all agents, analysts and
    other critical professional support employees. This has provided these
    individuals with the ability to conduct their daily operational duties
    in the field without being chained to a desk. Their blackberry provides
    them with access to critical Sensitive but Unclassified applications
    they would normally access at their desks, such as email, Internet, the
    National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Department of Motor
    Vehicles, etc. We are also continuing the technical refreshment of our
    Secret workstations, where most FBI employees conduct their day-to-day
    business. In addition, we continue to deploy SCION, our Top Secret
    network, to headquarters and field offices around the country.
    Strengthening these information technology programs allow us to
    communicate with our law enforcement and intelligence community
    partners in real-time.
        We are also in the midst of developing the Next Generation
    Identification (NGI) system. NGI will expand the FBI's Integrated
    Automated Fingerprint Identification System beyond fingerprints to
    advanced biometrics. It will also produce faster returns of
    information, enabling law enforcement and counterterrorism officials to
    make tactical decisions in the field. Criminals ranging from identity
    thieves to document forgers to terrorists are taking advantage of
    modern technology to shield their identities and activities. This trend
    will only accelerate. Our new system will improve fingerprint
    identification capabilities, and as it becomes cost-effective,
    additional biometric data from criminals and terrorists. It will give
    us--and all our law enforcement and intelligence partners--faster
    capabilities that are more accurate and complete.
        We are also building a Biometrics Technology Center, a joint
    facility with the Department of Defense's (DOD) Biometrics Fusion
    Center, which will serve as the center for biometric research and
    development. This facility will advance centralized biometric storage,
    analysis, and sharing with State and local law enforcement, DOD, and
    others. The FBI is currently working with the DOD in theater in Iraq
    and Afghanistan to collect and search biometrics information. This
    effort has shown the critical role emerging biometric technology has
    played in the war on terror. Information collected in Iraq and
    Afghanistan is transmitted via mobile biometric devices to global
    databases at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division
    main facility, which houses the largest centralized collection of
    biometric information in the world. This biometric information is
    searched and matching results are relayed to units back in the field to
    assist in their operations and investigations. The fiscal year 2010
    budget includes $97.6 million in our construction account to move the
    construction phase of this project forward.
        The FBI must also keep pace with evolving technology. Currently,
    all wireless carriers in the United States are upgrading their networks
    to third 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
    2010 budget includes $20.5 million to assist us in keeping abreast of
    this cutting edge technology and the ability to counter the technology
    posed by our adversaries.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        Critical to the success of the FBI's mission are safe and
    appropriate work environments. Since September 11, the FBI's workforce
    has grown substantially. While the FBI has made considerable effort to
    hire quality personnel, provide the necessary training, and properly
    equip these new personnel, much of the FBI's infrastructure has not
    kept pace. For example, the FBI continues to work to provide secure
    work environments for handling classified information and computers and
    other technology. In particular, there are two construction projects
    that are critical to the FBI's mission which are included in the fiscal
    year 2010 request.
        The FBI Academy, in Quantico, VA was built in 1972, and has not
    undergone major renovation or upgrade since, aside from the addition of
    a dorm in 1988. The Academy is home to new Agents for the first 21
    weeks of their FBI career; is the setting for new Intelligence Analyst
    training; houses the National Academy, which is a professional course
    for United States and international law enforcement officers to raise
    law enforcement standards, knowledge and cooperation worldwide; is the
    venue for the FBI's Leadership Development Institute, which provides
    leadership development education to FBI employees; and is the locale
    for various other FBI training opportunities. The Academy is
    continuously operating at maximum capacity, which leaves little
    opportunity for both scheduled and unscheduled renovation--a necessity
    due to the age of the Academy. The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $10
    million for an Architectural and Engineering (A&E) study, which will
    help us determine the full scope of renovations/construction necessary.
        In addition, we are in dire need of a Central Records Complex
    (CRC), which will consolidate and digitize FBI records now dispersed
    among 265 FBI locations worldwide. The CRC will enable us to
    efficiently locate and access all of our records quickly, thus allowing
    us to more effectively process name checks, as well as provide critical
    case and administrative data that can be used for intelligence and
    investigative purposes. The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $9 million
    to prepare these records to be universally-searchable, accessible, and
    useful intelligence and investigative tools prior to relocation to the
    CRC.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Chairwoman Mikulski, 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 8 years are in part
    due to your efforts and support through annual and supplemental
    appropriations. Unlike the FBI of 1908, today's FBI is much more than a
    law enforcement organization. The American public expects us to be a
    national security organization, driven by intelligence and dedicated to
    protecting our country from all threats to our freedom. For 100 years,
    the men and women of the FBI have dedicated themselves to safeguarding
    justice, to upholding the rule of law, and to defending freedom. As we
    look back on the past 100 years, we renew our pledge to serve our
    country and to protect our fellow citizens with fidelity, bravery, and
    integrity for the next 100 years, and beyond.
        From addressing the growing financial crisis to mitigating cyber
    attacks 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.

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Director, we also want to note that
    Senator Lautenberg, one of our real active members, has joined
    us. Senator, I'm going to ask questions for a few minutes and
    then turn it over for comments and your questions as well.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
    It's been a privilege to work with you as chairman over lots of
    years. Senator Mikulski is someone who knows how to hit the
    ball, hit it far and deep. We always----
        Senator Mikulski. Better than the Orioles.
        Senator Lautenberg. We always like being with her at
    committee hearings and other places.
        Mr. Mueller----
        Senator Mikulski. Senator, I haven't asked my questions, so
    I'm going to lead off with my questions.
        Senator Lautenberg. Okay. I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
        Senator Mikulski. I was just welcoming you. Let me get
    right to my questions and then we can get to other members as
    they come. First, I'm going to ask a question that is mundane
    and yet significant. This goes to another job we have in this
    CJS Subcommittee, which is making sure that the census is done
    on time. The census needs to be done on time and it's had
    significant technological failure and will need to be more
    manpower intensive.
        Is the FBI ready? With all of the security clearances or
    background checks that it's working on, will the FBI have
    sufficient ability to process the significant thousands of
    numbers of people that we have to hire to take the census?
    Remember, we're going to have people in every community saying:
    I'm from the government; I'd like to ask you some questions.
    Which means they'll be exposed to vulnerable populations, and
    we need to make sure they have had rigorous background checks.
        Also, have you worked with the Census Bureau to make sure
    we'll be able to work at the State and local level to make sure
    that there will not be people imitating the census people? I
    think that's actually also a question for Secretary Locke.
        You know, I worry about the FBI in so many ways, about
    having the resources. But really, with the new administration,
    you're working doubletime on doing background checks. While
    we're going to talk about mortgage fraud and fighting
    terrorists and stopping trafficking of human beings, we've got
    the FBI doing all these background checks.
        So let me start with the census and ask, will you be able
    to meet the needs, because it will require a surge capacity?
        Mr. Mueller. Let me start, Madam Chairwoman, if I may, by
    saying that in the budget we've requested resources for agents
    and others to enhance our capability to do background checks
    generally, because it comes out of our other programs, and at a
    time like this, with a new administration, we take a great deal
    of resources and put them on the background checks. So our
    budget request for 2010 does include resources there.
        Turning to the census, we began working with the Census
    Bureau----
        Senator Mikulski. You say that in order to vet the
    administration's new people you do have the resources to do the
    background checks?
        Mr. Mueller. We do it now, but we take it--again, we
    prioritize, but I think you will find that the administration
    is quite satisfied with the pace of our background checks on
    the nominees that they've proposed. But it does take resources
    from other----
        Senator Mikulski. But it's a strain on the FBI to do this?
        Mr. Mueller. It is a strain on particular offices. That is
    why we have specifically asked for additional resources down
    the road in 2010 to address the background checks. The current
    nominees, we have effectively, efficiently, and in a timely
    manner provided the backgrounds necessary to move forward and
    place persons in positions in this administration.
        Let me move if I could to the issue of the census. In
    response to your letter of April 30, we have a response here
    today, we provided a copy to your staff, that addresses those
    questions in more detail. In brief, I can tell you that since
    2007 we have been working with the Census Bureau on this
    particular issue. We anticipate that there will be something
    like 4.5 million names that we will have to run through records
    checks, and we are working with the Census Bureau in a number
    of ways to assure that this could be done efficiently.
        First, we have established communications lines with the
    Census Bureau so that we can talk and exchange information
    quickly. We have had some difficulties with the quality of the
    fingerprint submissions to date and we are working with the
    Census Bureau to make certain that we improve and increase the
    fingerprint submissions. We are increasing our capabilities at
    IAFIS, our fingerprint facility out in West Virginia, and we
    are also anticipating peak processing periods where we will
    have to put on additional persons to respond to requests that
    will come in in some volume at particular points in time in the
    growth of the work force for the taking of the census.
        So with that in place, I think we, with the Census Bureau
    are satisfying the need to make certain that we are responsive
    to their needs.
        The other issue that you raise and have raised before, and
    that is individuals masquerading as census takers. We intend to
    be alert to that, to work with our field offices to very
    swiftly respond to any indications of that type of fraud, and
    move quickly to investigate, turn it over to the prosecutors,
    so that those individuals who would undertake that activity
    would be prosecuted.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think that's fantastic. I don't
    want to dwell on this, but I want the record to show, number
    one, the Census Bureau will hire 1.5 million workers. This is
    while we're also screening for Cabinet-level positions and
    other security clearances. So we're asking the FBI to do a lot.
    I know this is not the kind of question that, oh, everybody
    comes and wants to be on CNN, but it's really significant. And
    the FBI only has so many people.
        So we thank you for your response to this. We're going to
    take your letter that is a formal answer to the question and
    with unanimous consent include it in the record. As we move on,
    I believe you and Secretary Locke really are ready to do this.
    So thank you.
        [The information follows:]
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                                          Washington, DC, June 3, 2009.
    Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
    Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
            Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Madam Chairwoman: I am writing in response to your letter
    dated April 30 concerning the FBI's ability to conduct fingerprint
    searches and name-based background checks on temporary employees to be
    hired in support of the 2010 Census. You requested specific information
    regarding steps the FBI is taking to guarantee that the 2010 Census
    will not be delayed due to these necessary background checks; how the
    increase in workload will affect the FBI's background check system and
    the associated human resources; and if there will be any additional
    costs incurred in order to conduct these checks in a timely manner.
        The U.S. Census Bureau currently estimates that 4.6 million names
    will be forwarded to the FBI for background checks and 1.4 million
    fingerprint cards will be electronically submitted to search against
    the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
    (IAFIS). Recognizing the significant challenge of this undertaking, the
    FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division and the
    U.S. Census Bureau have been working together since 2007 to ensure that
    the background check process does not adversely affect the conduct of
    the 2010 Census.
        These preparations include the following:
      --Submission of Names and Fingerprints by the U.S. Census Bureau.--An
            efficient and effective process for the submission of names and
            fingerprints by the U.S. Census Bureau is essential. The CJIS
            Division recently enhanced its telecommunications
            infrastructure that connects to the U.S. Census Bureau in
            Bowie, Maryland, in order to support the volume of information
            expected to be submitted. A second telecommunications line will
            be temporarily installed in Bowie as a backup to ensure there
            is no interruption in service. In addition, the CJIS Division
            recently traveled to the U.S. Census Bureau's National
            Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana, to observe the
            fingerprint scanning process, participate in mock training
            sessions for employees involved in the background check
            process, and provide feedback regarding those activities.
      --Improving the Quality of U.S. Census Bureau Fingerprint
            Submissions.--The CJIS Division is working closely with the
            U.S. Census Bureau to improve the quality of its fingerprint
            submissions. Historically, rejection rates for all fingerprint
            submissions have been relatively low, with the fiscal year 2008
            rate less than 5 percent. To date, submission rejection rates
            for the 2010 Census average over 40 percent, with peaks above
            60 percent. Substandard submissions create a number of
            problems, including the need to resubmit the fingerprint
            information, utilization of an inordinate amount of system and
            human resources to resolve borderline submissions, and an
            increase in the potential for missed identifications of
            applicants who should be disqualified. In the past, there have
            also been instances where high rejection rates of U.S. Census
            Bureau search requests have resulted in degradation in the
            required 2-hour response time for criminal justice submissions.
          During the on-site visit to the U.S. Census Bureau's National
            Processing Center, CJIS Division representatives suggested that
            the U.S. Census Bureau activate the image quality functions on
            all scanners to reduce the frequency of inferior quality images
            being submitted to the IAFIS. This built-in functionality
            alerts U.S. Census Bureau personnel of potential fingerprint
            sequence errors and insufficient image quality, thus providing
            the opportunity for corrective action prior to electronically
            transmitting images to the IAFIS. Such a change in procedure
            would preserve U.S. Census Bureau and CJIS Division personnel
            resources, as well as allow the U.S. Census Bureau to avoid
            additional user fees from the resubmission of fingerprint
            images.
      --Upgrading Components of the IAFIS.--The CJIS Division is currently
            upgrading many components of the IAFIS. These upgrades, while
            primarily directed at the future growth of fingerprint
            submissions and expansion to include other biometric-related
            submissions, will also benefit the 2010 Census. These benefits
            will include larger storage capacity and a faster, more
            reliable network for all CJIS systems.
          The increased workload from the 2010 Census will, for the most
            part, not adversely affect the FBI's regular background check
            system. The name-based background checks and fingerprint checks
            submitted in support of the 2010 Census can be accommodated by
            the current IAFIS in all but the peak processing period.
      --Peak Processing Periods.--As previously noted, the U.S. Census
            Bureau projects that nearly 4.6 million name-based search
            requests will be forwarded to the FBI. Subsequent to the name-
            based checks, 1.4 million fingerprint cards will be
            electronically submitted for a search against the IAFIS
            database. Although fingerprint submissions will occur from
            December 2008 through 2011, there will be an extremely elevated
            submission rate during April 28-30, 2010. During this 3-day
            time period, the U.S. Census Bureau expects to submit
            approximately 485,000 fingerprint background checks to the CJIS
            Division. This is in addition to the FBI's current daily
            average fingerprint workload of 175,000 submissions. The U.S.
            Census Bureau workload estimate does not reflect the projected
            30 percent rejection rate due to fingerprint submissions of
            insufficient quality. If the suggestions for improvement in
            fingerprint quality discussed above are not successful, the
            U.S. Census Bureau submission numbers could grow to over
            600,000 for this 3-day period.
      --Mitigating Actions Planned.--The FBI will take several steps to
            ensure timely processing of the U.S. Census Bureau submissions
            during the peak period without adversely affecting submissions
            from other agencies. The CJIS Division plans to temporarily
            redirect staff during the peak processing period and will
            provide overtime compensation and other incentives, as
            necessary, to ensure the availability of adequate staff. In
            addition, the CJIS Division has coordinated with other agencies
            to adjust the processing of their submissions to accommodate
            the anticipated fingerprint submissions from the U.S. Census
            Bureau. Specifically, CJIS plans to queue nonurgent
            transactions from other agencies during April 28-May 2, 2010.
            All users of IAFIS have been notified, through the CJIS
            Advisory Policy Board and the Compact Council, that during
            April 28-May 2, 2010, various types of noncriminal justice
            transactions will be held in queue for processing until May 3,
            2010. In addition, processing for some criminal transactions
            considered to be nonurgent in nature will be limited during
            this time period. There will be no degradation in service to
            the criminal justice community as a result of these actions.
        In response to your inquiry regarding additional costs to the FBI
    to support the 2010 Census, the CJIS Division is currently upgrading
    many components of the IAFIS. These upgrades will provide larger
    storage capacity and a faster, more reliable network. The CJIS Division
    estimates the costs of these upgrades to be approximately $70 million
    and, while primarily directed at the future growth of fingerprint
    submissions and expansion to include other biometric-related
    submissions, these upgrades will also benefit the 2010 Census. This
    cost will be offset by approximately $34 million in fees to be paid by
    the U.S. Census Bureau, for a net cost to the FBI of approximately $36
    million.
        The FBI appreciates your interest regarding the potential risks
    posed as temporary U.S. Census Bureau employees visit the homes of the
    general public and will take all steps necessary to support the
    processing of background checks for the 2010 Census. To this end, it is
    crucial that the U.S. Census Bureau commits to capturing fingerprints
    of sufficient quality to assist the FBI in identifying perpetrators of
    criminal acts and terrorist-related crimes.
        I hope this information will be of assistance to you.
                Sincerely Yours,
                                        Robert S. Mueller, III,
                                                              Director.

        Senator Mikulski. This then takes me to the issue of
    sufficient agents. In your testimony you said that after 9/11,
    2,000 of your criminal agents were moved to the National
    Security Branch, and they did a spectacular job. However, ``It
    reduced our ability,'' you say, ``to surge resources within our
    Criminal Branch and meet existing and emerging threats.'' What
    we want to do is begin to help the FBI balance the multiple
    demands on it. We want you to be vigorous and stand sentry over
    these international predatory and even domestic threats. But we
    really want the FBI to continue to be the FBI that we know and
    love and count on, which is domestically.
        In the President's budget you're given more resources. You
    have 450,000 applicants, that's a pretty amazing number. Do you
    have enough money to hire enough agents to do what you need,
    not only in the National Security Branch, but again to in some
    ways recapitalize our criminal enterprise area of the FBI?
        Mr. Mueller. We always have to prioritize. We did before
    September 11, depending on the surge of crime in the country
    before September 11. Our budgets in the last couple of years
    and this one seek additional resources, agents, principally in
    the cyber arena, as well as in mortgage fraud. We have received
    additional agents in those areas in years past. We could always
    use more agents. We have probably more than 530, I think,
    agents working mortgage fraud, corporate fraud, securities
    fraud at this juncture. Back in the savings and loan crisis,
    again in the early 1990s, we had almost 1,000.
        Now, we have become, I believe, more effective in
    addressing white collar criminal cases by understanding that we
    need to move quickly and to bring them to fruition more quickly
    than we have in the past, and using computers and databases and
    intelligence capabilities to focus on and prioritize those
    cases. But nonetheless, we could always use more resources
    there.
        Again, one thing that should not be lost, though, is that
    it's not just agents; it's the infrastructure for the agents.
        Senator Mikulski. Right.
        Mr. Mueller. We can--I will say, over a period of time
    Congress has allocated to us agents, but what you need with
    those agents is the supporting infrastructure, the intelligence
    analysts, the professional staff, the training. So it's not
    just a focus on agents itself, but on the support that the
    agents need. In our budget request, we have focused on
    expanding the academy. We have funds in here for security
    training and career paths. We have funds in here for
    intelligence, and it's not just intelligence for the national
    security mission, but also for the criminal mission.
        So it's not just the agents we need, but it's also the
    infrastructure to support the additional agents on the criminal
    side.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you. I'm going to follow up
    on a second round, but I'd like to turn to Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The comments
    I made earlier I assume stand in the record, about the guidance
    and the leadership of the chairman.
        Mr. Mueller, we have great respect for you. You have
    treated the position, that it gains I think more honor for a
    very distinguished group of people who we count on so dearly.
        With 9/11, we learned that we have to be on guard
    constantly and, I might say, deeply with threats that come to
    our country. I was just in Turkey and the prime minister there
    decreed that one of the organizations that we have on the
    terrorist list, one of the countries, that he sees no problems
    with it. I found it really disturbing because when you look at
    the forces that we put together to fight against terrorism, it
    numbers in the hundreds of thousands of people. I think the
    chairman made reference to that.
        So I thank you and the people who serve with you for your
    diligence and hard work and commitment to duty.
        I want to commend the FBI for the recent sting operation
    that resulted in the arrests of four men plotting to bomb
    synagogues in New York City. As you're aware, Federal law
    actually allows individuals on the terror watch list to
    purchase a gun or even explosives, unless they have some other
    disqualifying factor such as being a felon. In response to a
    letter that I sent you in 2005, the Department of Justice
    recommended giving the attorney General the power to deny guns
    and explosives to terror suspects. Yet we still have the
    condition that existed then.
        Isn't it time to close the terror gap in our laws?
        Mr. Mueller. Denying a weapon to somebody who's not
    convicted of an offense or subject to a psychiatric disability
    and the like is an issue that has been debated over the years.
    I would have to defer to the Department of Justice in terms of
    the current position on to what extent the identification of an
    individual as being associated or affiliated in some way with
    terrorism should bar that individual from obtaining a weapon.
        We are notified when there appears to be a purchase by
    somebody who is affiliated with a terrorist group. But that is
    different than barring that individual from the outset from
    purchasing a weapon. But again, I have to defer to the
    Department of Justice in terms of the policy position that it
    is going to take on that issue.
        Senator Lautenberg. You know, I've been a long-time
    supporter of closing the gun show loophole, which permits
    unlicensed dealers to operate without any responsibilities
    about the person they are considering selling a gun to. They
    don't have to ask a question about name, no identifying,
    address, any background. We came awfully close some years ago
    in closing that loophole. Every time we see a situation develop
    where someone gets a gun, often illegally, and goes ahead and
    kills somebody because they're angry or otherwise--and lots of
    times these things are purchased, as was in Columbine, by
    someone underage and without any qualifications.
        How do you feel about the gun show loophole?
        Mr. Mueller. Again, I'm going to defer to the Department of
    Justice. It's a policy issue that is made generally by the
    administration and by the Department of Justice.
        Senator Lautenberg. Let me ask you then, do you think that
    we would be safer if there was regulatory jurisdiction on
    unlicensed dealers?
        Mr. Mueller. I believe there are arguments on both sides of
    that. From the parochial law enforcement perspective, fewer
    guns is better, from the perspective of law enforcement. On the
    other hand, this is a country which has so many guns at this
    point. You can't compare it to a European country that has had
    centuries--not centuries, because you haven't had guns hundreds
    of years, but certainly decades of stringent gun enforcement.
        So you can argue both sides of that, and again I defer it
    to the Department of Justice.
        Senator Lautenberg. I don't want you to do that. I don't
    want you to argue both sides. You're a man of honesty and good
    judgment. So we'll pass it.
        Madam Chairman, may I have just a few minutes more, please?
        Senator Mikulski. Go right ahead.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        The FBI, as you know, identified the stretch between Port
    Newark and Liberty International as the most dangerous 2 miles
    in America. That was for a terrorist attack. An attack on this
    2-mile area could cause untold suffering, death, injury, but
    crippling also the economy by disrupting major portions of the
    country's rail lines, oil infrastructure. We'd shut down the
    air traffic system, communications, all of these things.
        Now, how will the FBI use these resources? I for one think
    that there's no question but that we have to respond to your
    request for a budget that gives you more--a better facility and
    more people. How will the FBI use the resources in that request
    to protect, further protect this 2 miles?
        Mr. Mueller. The resources we're requesting, whether it be
    a WMD response or cyber security, we have requests in for
    enhanced surveillance and we've got requests in for enhancing
    as I may have mentioned, our intelligence program, and national
    security investigations across the country.
        But the understanding of the vulnerabilities of that 2-mile
    stretch has been longstanding. Not only us; by DHS too. There
    are a number of pieces that have been put in place already to
    protect it, amongst them the Joint Terrorism Task Force in
    Newark, which works closely not only with State and local
    counterparts in Newark and northern New Jersey and New Jersey
    as a whole, but also with New York.
        On that Joint Terrorism Task Force are airport liaison
    agents that operate Newark International Airport. We have
    maritime liaison agents that are looking at the maritime
    vulnerabilities. We have an area maritime security committee
    for the Port of New York and New Jersey that is a separate
    entity addressed specifically to those issues. We also have
    coordination with the rails, the railroad companies, and on the
    national railroad system.
        Senator Lautenberg. Not meaning to interrupt, but what
    will--will the additional funds being requested help us be more
    effective in our terrorist act prevention role?
        Mr. Mueller. It will, in two specific ways. One, in terms
    of additional resources, special agents, professional staff and
    others, to conduct investigations or follow leads when we get
    counterterrorism leads; the other area, providing additional
    resources to build up our intelligence capability with special
    agents, with intelligence analysts, and with professional
    staff, that will increase our ability to gather insight into
    potential threats, including potential threats to this strip in
    northern New Jersey.
        Senator Lautenberg. The gun show loophole, as I described,
    allows just about anybody to walk in and buy a gun, including
    an assault weapon. Yet criminal background checks can be
    completed in a matter of minutes. Shouldn't we require criminal
    background checks for all gun purchases at all gun shows?
        Mr. Mueller. Again, I think I incorporate my answer before.
    You can argue both ways, but this is an issue that is a policy
    issue that's left really to the Department of Justice. Whatever
    policy arguments are made by the Department of Justice I will
    be supportive of.
        Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Mueller, you're too good for
    passing that ball. I don't want to put you in a spot here, but
    your opinions--and I don't know how guarded you have to be when
    throwing out an opinion.
        Mr. Mueller. I can tell you, as I said before, from the
    perspective of law enforcement, fewer guns and the ability to
    track guns enhances our capabilities.
        Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, you know very well that
    I wrote the law to prohibit spousal abusers from getting
    Federal gun permits. When I fought the legislation through, it
    was 1996 and they said: Ah, you don't need it, and so forth.
    And I did it in a way that it had to come up for a vote.
    Reluctantly on the part of many here, the bill was passed into
    law.
        We have since 1986, since I wrote that law, we've had over
    150,000 household bullies denied gun permits, and having to
    fight the fight with that was a terrible----
        Senator Mikulski. How many?
        Senator Lautenberg. 150,000. 150,000 of these household
    bullies have been denied gun permits.
        Senator Mikulski. First of all, that's a great term,
    ``household bully.'' But 150,000 people probably meant you
    either saved a spouse, a child, or a law enforcement officer
    coming to their rescue.
        Senator Lautenberg. That's the case, and the first
    conviction came from a fellow who was a U.S. attorney in
    Denver, Colorado, whom I knew, and he called me up. He was so
    cheerful. He said: Frank, I've got great news; we just
    convicted one of these guys, a spousal abuser, and he got a
    3\1/2\ year term for having acquired a gun, and had been only
    with a misdemeanor conviction only. Felons can't get them.
        Anyway--and I'll close, Madam Chairman. The FBI's Newark
    Division covers all New Jersey counties except for three that
    are covered by Philadelphia. The split hinders, I am told, New
    Jersey's ability to have a unified strategy for combating
    crime, including gangs and gun violence, is at odds with the
    U.S. attorney's office and the ATF, both of which cover the
    whole State.
        Would you commit to working with our office and the New
    Jersey Attorney General's Office to take a look at this issue
    and see if we can improve the operation by having it more
    carefully managed by the New Jersey headquarters?
        Mr. Mueller. I understand there have been ongoing
    discussions with Ann Milgram, who's a very good State's
    attorney, on that particular issue, as well as the issues
    relating to the Philadelphia area. It's Camden we're talking
    about, and Philadelphia. I believe we're working through those
    issues. They are complicated in some sense because, what I have
    come to find, that criminals don't really care about the
    borders. Criminals in Camden and Philadelphia don't really care
    that Camden may be in New Jersey and Philadelphia is in
    Pennsylvania. Gangs can operate very swiftly across borders.
    You see it here in this area with the District of Columbia and
    Maryland or the District of Columbia and Virginia, and they
    don't care about these borders.
        For us to be effective, one of the things we can bring to
    law enforcement is the oversight of bringing the intelligence
    together from two separate entities, two States, in an area
    where criminals don't care about the different States. In order
    to be effective in reducing and investigating and locking up
    gang members, for instance, you need that overview.
        That's one of the issues that we're discussing with the
    Attorney General of New Jersey and we do want to work through
    it and come up with a resolution, because I do understand from
    her perspective the desire to take care of her State and the
    responsibility she has working with the New Jersey State Police
    and the like. So there are some conflicting issues there that
    we're working through.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        If you intend to leave and join us for the classified
    hearing, we're going to be finished with this part in about 15
    minutes and we'll resume. We're going to move up the classified
    hearing. So we'll move that up to quarter of 11 o'clock, and
    that way the Director will be able to expedite our conversation
    and also leave you to be on your way to fight crime and
    predators and for truth, justice, and the American way.
        But in the meantime, a couple of more questions. I really
    value your comments in which you said that, yes, we need more
    special agents, but we need more intelligence analysts, more
    professional staff, and we need the resources to properly train
    them. I'd like to talk about training and technology and the
    situation at Quantico, which is kind of like the Naval Academy
    at Annapolis or West Point. You are the FBI Academy.
        Let's go to technology. Really the major tool of the trade
    today to do so much about what you're asked to do is new uses
    of technology. We had a rough time with SENTINEL, where we had
    to start all over again. Could you brief the committee, number
    one, on the fact that you've hired a new CIO, and also where we
    are on SENTINEL? As you know, we did have to start again, at
    considerable cost to the budget. So are we on time, on line,
    and ready to do the job?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, ma'am. The failure was on what was called
    the Virtual Case File system early in this decade, where it had
    been put together early on without understanding our needs and
    ultimately did not satisfy our needs and at bottom would not
    work. The SENTINEL project that's been ongoing for 2, 2\1/2\
    years now is on target to finish in I think 2010 and is within
    budget.
        There have been adjustments that have been made along the
    way because we've done it in phases, the understanding being
    that I wanted to make absolutely certain that the first phase
    worked and that we laid the groundwork for the second phase and
    then the third and the fourth phase. We're finishing up the
    second phase now and, as I say, we've done I believe a good job
    of developing this, shifting internally to the program to take
    advantage of lessons that we've learned from phase one so that
    we can make improvements in phases two, three, and four.
        I will tell you that our work with the contractor, Lockheed
    Martin, has worked well. I meet with the CEO of Lockheed Martin
    every 6 months to make certain that both of us know that it's
    on track and that any issues or glitches will be addressed by
    both of us. It has been a very worthwhile relationship.
        So I am comfortable and confident that we are on the right
    track.
        Senator Mikulski. When will SENTINEL be done? I mean, when
    will you have completed it?
        Mr. Mueller. I believe the last date is--it's the summer of
    2010. I will tell you, just so that you know, we are going
    through right now one of the more challenging phases, and that
    is, without getting into the specifics, but moving databases,
    making certain that the security is adequate and the like. So
    our expectation is that it will be done by summer of next year,
    2010. But we are going through some of the toughest periods.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, as you say in your written
    testimony that you submitted: ``The FBI is one of the few
    agencies that operates in three enclaves in terms of the net:
    unclassified, Secret, and Top Secret.'' Which also means the
    case management files have to operate at those three enclave
    levels. Am I correct in that?
        Mr. Mueller. You're correct. Right now SENTINEL will go
    generally at the second level, which is the Secret level. We're
    putting in place plans to expand it to the other levels.
        Senator Mikulski. Now I want to go to the next one, which I
    found really surprising here. It said you are now going on
    something called the UNet, which is your unclassified Internet
    connect system, and you're now giving every agent a BlackBerry.
    Is that correct? I thought----
        Mr. Mueller. I think we have something like----
        Senator Mikulski. Do you mean every agent doesn't have what
    everybody else has?
        Mr. Mueller. No, everybody--all persons, whether it be
    agents or analysts, who profitably can use the BlackBerry in
    the course of their work have a BlackBerry. I think it's over
    20,000 at this juncture BlackBerries throughout the Bureau. And
    we have additional capabilities that we're including, in other
    words access to CGIS databases that will make the BlackBerry
    not only indispensable as it is to communications, whether it
    be email and otherwise, but also to data that the agent can use
    in the course of their day to day activities.
        Senator Mikulski. It says things like the National Crime
    Info Center, DMVAs around the country----
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Things that when they're in the process
    of doing it they need to be able to access unclassified
    databases, would help them do their job, etcetera. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Mueller. That is correct. One needs to keep in mind,
    however, security.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Mr. Mueller. When we're developing these new communication
    tools, everybody wants, including myself--and I tend to be
    impatient--the new communications tools. But we have to do it
    understanding that we need to put into place the requisite
    security to assure that if a particular BlackBerry becomes
    infected with malware or otherwise it does not give persons
    access to the system as a whole. Consequently, as we have built
    these various systems we have given the appropriate attention,
    I believe, to the appropriate security to assure that they are
    safe from intrusions.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, that's excellent. But I want to go
    through the lessons learned from the debacle that took us to
    SENTINEL. I believe there are a lot of lessons that you've just
    even articulated, Mr. Director. But you're about to embark upon
    several new initiatives. You're developing the Next Generation
    Identification System that will expand the FBI's Integrated
    Automated Fingerprint ID System. You're building a new
    Biometrics Tech Center. Biometrics is supposed to be one of the
    latest and greatest in terms of identifying people.
        Also, the private sector is developing new wireless
    technology, in which you need to be able to help us to deal
    with cyber intrusions, cyber attacks, et cetera.
        So here is my question. Not only are you in the human
    development, but you're in the technology development. Human
    development is the special agents, the intelligence analysts,
    the professional staff. But this tech development we've got to
    get right the first time and do it--because we only can do this
    once now. We're really running severe deficits. We cannot ever
    go back if we screw up.
        What steps are being taken--and we don't have to detail it
    in each area; maybe you want to submit a more formal
    statement--so that we do not end up in other techno
    boondoggles, quite frankly? It's a blunt term. I don't mean it
    to be a stinging term, but we've got to protect the American
    people by making sure the FBI has the right tools, and that's
    technology. That's as important to you now as carrying a gun;
    am I correct?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. You can always get a new gun, but you
    can't go back and redo technology.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes. Well, the Virtual Case File, let me just
    start there, with trilogy. It was part of a trilogy system to
    upgrade our capabilities. The other prongs of that or the other
    legs of that stool work exceptionally well and we have had a
    history, although occasionally overlooked, of developing
    databases and having them work effectively and efficiently.
    Fingerprints is one of them. DNA is another one.
        Over the years the FBI has been on the cutting edge of
    developing technology for use in law enforcement, and I believe
    we continue to do so, and that history will be extended with
    the new Biometric Technology Center, with the upgrading of our
    fingerprint capabilities. My full expectation is that they will
    be as successful as they have been in the past.
        The SENTINEL and several other packages that we have
    developed to handle our sources, to handle our intelligence
    requirements, are coming on line this year and the next and I
    believe will be not only successful, but will be models for
    others.
        That's internally. If you look externally at our expertise,
    our ability to investigate cyber intrusions and the like, I
    believe we are ahead of just about every other agency in the
    world in terms of our capabilities, our experience, our
    expertise, and having the tools to utilize those skills to
    identify--well, investigate, identify, and then attribute cyber
    attacks. So whether it be internally to our information
    technology or externally to address some of the technology
    developments, I believe we are on course to be successful.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you. The actual policy and
    people issues we're going to talk about in the next classified
    hearing, because I think they're quite sensitive.
        First of all, we want to work with you on that because it
    is a major public investment to accomplish a pretty significant
    public good.
        I also want to note the issue that is part of the training
    for our FBI personnel. We want to support the effort to
    modernize Quantico. I'd like the record to show, as is in the
    statement of the FBI Director, that the Quantico, Virginia, the
    famous FBI Academy, was built in 1972. It has not undergone any
    renovations since we added a new dorm in 1988. So this is the
    FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We haven't done
    anything substantial in 37 years in terms of the physical
    facilities--the last thing we did was 20 years ago and it was a
    dorm that was wired for the pre-.com world.
        We can't bring talented, smart people that you're
    recruiting with all kinds of backgrounds and bring them into a
    dated facility. I want you to know, Mr. Director, as well as
    the people who serve at the FBI and those who are coming to the
    FBI, that we're on your side on this one.
        We understand in the budget request you ask for $10 million
    to take a look at what is needed, so that we can upgrade the
    facilities with not only buildings with bricks and mortar, but
    modems and clicks, so that we can really do the kind of
    training necessary, because, as you said, it's one thing to
    bring in the people, but we've got to get them ready for the
    job, which means new threats, new challenges. But we need new
    facilities to do it.
        So I'm going to pledge to you right now. We will support
    you in your people. We're going to support you in your
    technology, and we're going to support you in making sure that
    we truly have a 21st century FBI Academy.
        So there are other things I'm going to talk about. We're
    going to take a temporary recess. I also am going to reiterate
    what Senator Shelby said about the joint task forces at the
    State and local level. Those in Maryland are operating
    superbly. I'd like to compliment the Baltimore Field Office on
    this. I'd like to compliment the U.S. attorney, Rob Rosenstein,
    who has also coordinated some of this in our work with the
    District U.S. attorney. But my local law enforcement, from the
    police commissioners to the sheriffs and so on, just think
    these task forces are an amazing tool to get value and leverage
    the law enforcement effort. As you said, particularly in the
    capital region, whether it's Montgomery County or Prince
    George's County or going over to Northern Virginia, it's some
    pretty rough stuff going on. There seems to be like a
    brotherhood of the Beltway, if you will, that comes out of
    these joint task forces. We just want to reiterate, we want to
    support that effort while we're working on these other issues.
        Before I recess us to take us to the classified hearing, is
    there anything you would like to add? Is there anything you
    didn't have a chance to say? Some questions or answers you've
    thought of that you'd like to share?
        Mr. Mueller. No. One thing I believe I'd like to respond
    briefly to, what Senator Shelby said about TEDAC. TEDAC is an
    important facility for IEDs. As he points out, we have had to
    prioritize and we are looking forward to further discussions in
    terms of funding to expand our capabilities in that regard. So
    we appreciate the input and the support.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, and the record will
    so show that.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Now, if there are no further questions this morning,
    Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's
    official record. We request the FBI's response within 30 days.
        Mr. Mueller. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        [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 Mark Pryor

        Question. Can you talk about the specific activities you plan to
    carry out with the additional funding? Will you increase FBI field
    office involvement in these sorts of investigations? Hire additional
    agents and accountants?
        Answer. The $25.5 million in requested funding for mortgage fraud
    would enable the FBI to increase its available field investigative
    assets by 50 Special Agents and 61 Forensic Accountants. These
    additional resources would increase the FBI's ability to address
    mortgage fraud and sub-prime related corporate fraud through increased
    investigations and higher quality evidence production. This funding
    would provide the FBI with the resources necessary to expand its
    document management systems, allowing the FBI to expedite document
    analysis and add more robust analysis capabilities. Given the central
    role of document analysis in white collar crime investigations, the FBI
    anticipates that these enhancements would contribute significantly to
    the FBI's efforts to address mortgage fraud and sub-prime related
    corporate fraud. Finally, this funding would allow the FBI to address
    the non-personnel aspects of our current task forces and working
    groups, and to add new ones as appropriate. Given the advantages of the
    close working relationships the FBI has established with State, local,
    and other Federal law enforcement and regulatory partners, the FBI
    considers these task forces and working groups to be significant, and
    highly cost effective, force multipliers.
        Question. How does your budget increase coordination between the
    FBI and other agencies involved in the southwest border initiatives?
        Answer. The FBI coordinates with other agencies involved in
    Southwest Border initiatives in numerous ways to ensure that efforts
    are synergistic, leading to better results than any one agency could
    achieve alone. For example, all FBI field offices, including those
    responsible for the States along the Southwest Border, include squads
    specifically responsible for criminal enterprise, violent crime, and
    public corruption investigations. These squads work closely with their
    counterparts in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
    (ATF), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE), and other relevant agencies to coordinate
    the many activities in which they have complementary roles. In
    addition, several task forces and working groups focus on particular
    aspects of the problems arising along our Southwest Border. These
    groups include the following:
      --El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC).--EPIC, which is led by the DEA
            and includes the participation of numerous Federal, State, and
            local agencies including the FBI, ATF, and ICE, was initiated
            to collect and disseminate information concerning drug, alien,
            and weapon smuggling. The FBI relies on the capabilities
            afforded by EPIC's multi-agency environment, coordinating its
            drug investigations closely with EPIC to ensure de-confliction
            and the efficient use of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
            Force (OCDETF) resources.
      --OCDETF.--OCDETF serves an important coordinating role in this
            region. In addition to the activities discussed above, an
            OCDETF Strike Force comprised of twelve FBI agents, nine DEA
            agents, two ICE agents, and one Texas Ranger was created in El
            Paso, Texas, and works closely with DEA's Resident Office in
            Cd. Juarez, Mexico, to gather intelligence and, when possible,
            assist in operations. Among other things, this Strike Force's
            investigations target Mexican Consolidated Priority
            Organizational Targets (CPOTs), who are responsible for a large
            amount of violence around the border. Another OCDETF Strike
            Force, operating in the FBI's San Diego Division since January
            2007, has also targeted Mexican CPOTs, identifying a number of
            Arellano-Felix Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (MDTO)
            kidnapping/homicide cells working within southern California.
            The San Diego Strike Force works closely with that Division's
            Violent Crime/Major Offender Squad to relay intelligence
            gleaned during drug enterprise investigations that involve
            violent crime issues. This Strike Force also regularly reports
            on corruption within the Mexican government.
      --High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program.--The FBI's El
            Paso Office participates in the regional HIDTA program, in
            which executive managers of numerous Federal, State, and local
            law enforcement agencies participate in monthly meetings to
            discuss the border violence and to look for trends and possible
            crossover into the United States.
      --Southwest Intelligence Group (SWIG).--The SWIG serves as the
            central repository and distribution point for FBI intelligence
            on both criminal and national security issues for this region.
            The SWIG is currently moving from FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) to
            EPIC, where it will be co-located with ATF, DEA, and ICE
            personnel.
      --Resolution Six, Mexico (R-6).--The purpose of R-6 is to enhance the
            inter-agency coordination of drug and gang investigations
            conducted in Mexico, with R-6 personnel working in coordination
            with the Mexican military and law enforcement authorities to
            gather intelligence in pursuit of the MDTOs and individuals
            responsible for lawlessness along the Southwest Border. R-6
            priorities include confidential human source development,
            supporting domestic cases appropriate for U.S. prosecution,
            cultivating liaison contacts within Mexico, and supporting
            bilateral criminal enterprise initiatives. The R-6 program is
            supervised by personnel located in numerous critical cities,
            including Mexico City, Cd. Juarez, Tijuana, Hermosillo, and
            Guadalajara.
        --Some R-6 personnel are co-located with the DEA to facilitate the
                coordination of drug investigations and participation in
                the R-6/DEA Electronic Intelligence Collection Initiative.
                The goal of this initiative is to identify and collect
                intelligence on drug cartel structures in order to disrupt
                and dismantle these criminal enterprises. This initiative
                will be worked with Mexico's Secretaria de Seguridad
                Publica (SSP); once reliable and significant intelligence
                is obtained, the SSP will present the findings to Mexican
                federal prosecutors and initiate formal investigations.
        --R-6 personnel also coordinate intelligence sharing and operations
                with ATF and United States Marshals Service (USMS)
                personnel stationed in Mexico in support of domestic FBI
                drug and organized crime investigations. R-6 and the USMS
                are initiating a Mexican Fugitive Intelligence Vetted Unit
                to locate fugitives that are members of, or protected by,
                drug cartels. The Mexican Intelligence Service will attempt
                to locate the fugitives using cellular tracking and other
                technologies and, once a fugitive is located, Mexican-
                vetted units will execute operations to apprehend the
                fugitive.
      --Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces (VGSSTFs).--A number of FBI
            VGSSTFs are working closely with Federal, State, and local law
            enforcement agencies to address violent street and prison gangs
            operating along the Southwest Border. Over the past several
            years, gangs such as the Mexican Mafia, the Almighty Latin
            Kings, and the Hermanos de Pistoleros Latinos have been linked
            to the smuggling and distribution of drugs for MDTOs. With
            their alliances to MDTOs, these gangs have committed murders
            and other violence in an effort to control territory along the
            Southwest Border.
      --Border Corruption Task Forces.--The FBI participates in six border
            corruption task forces along the Southwest Border. Among these
            is the National Border Corruption Task Force, which is a
            partnership between the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border
            Protection-Internal Affairs (CBP-IA) to be based at FBIHQ. The
            FBI and CBP-IA intend to coordinate their investigative efforts
            and resources and to conduct joint corruption training for
            field agents and managers.
        Question. I think coordination of efforts not only at the Federal
    level but also between Federal agencies and State and local agencies is
    critically important in combating drug and gang violence. What funding
    and resources are directly invested in the FBI's 56 field offices? How
    closely do these field offices work with and share information with
    State and local law enforcement officers?
        Answer. The FBI maintains drug, gang, and violent crime squads
    along the Southwest Border that work closely with State and local
    police agencies, as well as with the ATF, DEA, and ICE. For example, in
    calendar year 2008, the FBI's offices in San Diego, Albuquerque,
    Phoenix, El Paso, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and San Antonio
    participated in investigations of approximately 400 OCDETF and Criminal
    Enterprise cases with a nexus to Mexican drug trafficking and
    approximately 300 OCDETF and Criminal Enterprise cases with a nexus to
    violent gangs. These investigations resulted in approximately 2,621
    arrests, 1,036 indictments, and 620 convictions in fiscal year 2008.
        The FBI currently funds and manages approximately 150 VGSSTFs to
    address violent street and prison gangs operating along the border,
    with funding comprised primarily of asset forfeiture funds and OCDETF
    funds, along with some direct FBI funding. The VGSSTFs are staffed by
    over 650 FBI agents and over 1,000 task force officers, which include
    both State and local police officers.
        Question. What metrics are you using to ensure that funding spent
    on counter-drug and counter-gang activities successful?
        Answer. The FBI measures the success of its counter-drug and
    counter-gang activities by tracking the statistics representing the
    following activities, all of which are tracked by FBI division, region,
    and nationally.
      --Pending criminal enterprise and drug-related money laundering
            cases.
      --Drug trafficking operations, violent street gangs, outlaw
            motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs disrupted or dismantled as a
            result of the FBI's investigative efforts.
      --Seizures of illicit drugs and illicit drug funds.
      --Arrests, indictments, convictions, and sentences.
      --Asset forfeitures.
        As described in the fiscal year 2010 Congressional Justification,
    during fiscal year 2010, the FBI anticipates disrupting 30 drug-
    trafficking organizations with links to Consolidated Priority
    Organization Targets (CPOT) and dismantling 15 drug trafficking
    organizations with links to CPOTs. In addition, the FBI anticipates
    dismantling 99 gangs and other criminal enterprises.
        Question. Are there any specific initiatives focused on the issue
    of U.S. gang members participating in illicit activities coordinated by
    Mexican drug cartels?
        Answer. Yes. The SWIG has dedicated 11 Intelligence Analysts to
    conduct strategic analysis of the Southwest Border. Among other
    missions, these analysts are reviewing the connections between the
    Mexican drug cartels and their use of United States gang members for
    narcotics distribution and enforcement within the United States. In
    addition, there are 24 VGSSTFs in the eight FBI Divisions on the
    Southwest Border (Albuquerque, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, Los Angeles,
    Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego). These task forces target the
    ``worst of the worst,'' regardless of their status astrans-national,
    national, regional or local/neighborhood-based gangs.
        Question. Does this proposed budget have all the resources you need
    to carry out your cyber security duties?
        Answer. The FBI will continue to work with the Congress, the Office
    of Management and Budget, and others in the Department of Justice to
    identify the funding needed to address the administration's priorities.
        Question. What measurable goals do you plan to achieve with the
    funding provided under this budget?
        Answer. The funds referenced in the question relate to the
    Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), supporting the
    investigative, intelligence, and technological requirements to combat
    cyber attacks. These resources will increase the FBI's ability to
    respond to counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal computer
    intrusions, with particular emphasis on intrusions with a
    counterintelligence nexus. These resources will ensure that the FBI has
    the technological infrastructure to conduct these investigations and to
    turn seized network information into actionable intelligence products
    that can be used across the United States Intelligence Community to
    allow the government to move from a reactive to a proactive posture
    with respect to cyber attacks.
        The cyber threat to the Unites States and its allies is
    increasingly sophisticated, effective, dangerous, and broad in scope.
    Cyber-based attacks and intrusions directed at networks and networked
    systems continue to increase, resulting in substantial economic losses.
    The United States has suffered substantial loss of critical
    intelligence as a result of cyber exploitation, much of which may be by
    State sponsors. This is demonstrated concretely by foreign intrusions
    spanning U.S. government, academia, military, industrial, financial,
    and other domains, causing incalculable damage. Information related to
    U.S. government sensitive research, including military contractor
    research, has been compromised. Simply put, the Internet has provided
    foreign intelligence services with routine and immediate access inside
    otherwise well-guarded facilities and the ability to quickly exfiltrate
    massive quantities of data that otherwise (if in paper format) would
    require a well-coordinated fleet of tractor trailers and tankers to
    remove from our country.
        To meet the demands posed by cyber threats, the FBI must develop
    significant new assets and capabilities and transition its efforts from
    reactive investigations to the proactive mitigation of threats before
    they cause harm. To accomplish these objectives, the FBI must expand in
    the following areas: investigatory capabilities, cyber intelligence
    collection, science and technology tools to enhance investigatory and
    intelligence collection capabilities, and FBI information technology
    information assurance. In order for the FBI to expand its investigatory
    and intelligence gathering capabilities, the FBI's ability to intercept
    data, develop technical tools, and conduct data analysis of networks
    and seized hardware must expand as well.
        The National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), which
    serves as a multi-agency national focal point for coordinating,
    integrating, and sharing pertinent information related to cyber threat
    investigations, forecasts a 50 percent increase in the number of cyber-
    related electronic surveillance operations, a 30 percent increase in
    cyber-related undercover operations, and a 10 percent increase in the
    number of confidential human source operations, all of which will
    increase the burden on existing resources.
        Question. How does the Cyber Program coordinate and work with other
    cyber security initiatives such as the National Cyber Investigative
    Joint Task Force in which the FBI participates?
        Answer. The NCIJTF is an alliance of peers that includes
    representation from across the U.S. Government intelligence and law
    enforcement communities. The NCIJTF's member agencies have
    complementary missions to protect national cyber interests, operating
    through the NCIJTF in a collaborative environment that assists, but
    does not direct, the operational and investigative activities of
    participating agencies. The FBI participates in the NCIJTF, which
    seeks, through the joint investigative and operational efforts of its
    members, to proactively develop predictive intelligence and mitigate
    the cyber threat through the active use of that intelligence. As the
    NCIJTF's executive agent, the FBI has aligned critical investigative
    efforts to avoid and prevent duplications of effort, redundant legal
    process, and operational confusion. The FBI has also placed experienced
    personnel in liaison positions working on the cyber security
    initiatives sponsored by other agencies to facilitate the growth and
    efficacy of the NCIJTF. For example, the FBI's Cyber Division has
    assigned an experienced Senior Executive Service official as a detailee
    to the National Counterintelligence Executive, supporting the
    development of the National Cyber Counterintelligence Plan called for
    under the CNCI.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback

        Question. I understand the demand on FBI aviation has increased
    substantially in recent years. I also understand the FBI may be forced
    to rely on older or substandard equipment to fulfill these missions and
    meet the increased demand for surveillance capabilities. Can you
    describe the demands being made of FBI aviation, especially for aerial
    surveillance missions? Do you have enough aircraft to meet the
    increased demands?
        Answer. The FBI's aviation program provides safe and effective
    support for all facets of FBI investigative activities and law
    enforcement operations. Aircraft surveillance has become an
    indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique, and
    serves as a force multiplier to the ground surveillance teams. Aircraft
    surveillance allows ground personnel to remain further away from the
    surveillance target, ensuring greater personnel safety and reducing or
    eliminating the risk of compromise.
        On average, the FBI fulfills between 10,000 and 15,000 requests for
    surveillance each year. However, lower priority aviation surveillance
    requests go unaddressed because of the lack of aircraft, excessive
    aircraft down-time due to required maintenance or mechanical problems,
    lack of crew, or weather challenges. The growth in the number of
    surveillance requests for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),
    Physical Surveillance (FISUR), and other national security priorities
    has not only increased the number of requests that cannot be filled,
    but has also reduced the availability of hours for criminal matters.
    Prior to September 11, 2001, criminal matters accounted for
    approximately 79 percent of total aviation surveillance hours; criminal
    matters now account for only 30 percent of the total aviation hours
    flown.
        In 2005, the aviation program consisted of 104 surveillance
    aircraft regularly conducting surveillance missions--90 single engine
    and 14 twin/multi-engine aircraft. An audit of these aircraft found
    that the average age for both single and twin/multi-engine aircraft
    exceeded 25 years. Frequent inspections, overhauls, and parts
    replacement dramatically increase the maintenance costs and down-time
    of older aircraft. Eventually, it is more expensive to maintain the
    aircraft than to purchase a new one, particularly if it is necessary to
    update an old airframe with the avionics required to communicate with
    FAA towers, other aircraft, and ground surveillance teams. The FBI has
    been able to replace 23 of the single engine aircraft (with an
    additional 47 on order). The new aircraft are equipped with technology
    that allows the FBI to conduct surveillance at night, which is when
    most targets operate, as well as during reduced visibility conditions.
        In contrast, the FBI has been forced to remove without replacement
    seven multi-engine aircraft from its inventory because of maintenance
    costs and overall age. The last two remaining ``King Air'' aircraft in
    inventory are multi-engine planes that are capable of imaging and
    identifying a moving target from above 10,000 feet, which is imperative
    for reducing the risk of exposure, and can fly for over five
    consecutive hours. Unfortunately, the FBI will have to remove these two
    airframes from operation beginning September 30, 2009 because of their
    age.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Mikulski. The subcommittee will temporarily recess
    and reconvene in the Capitol Visitor Center Room 217 to take
    classified testimony from the FBI Director. We are going to
    reconvene at 10:50 a.m., and we'll see you there.
        The subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, June 4, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [The following testimonies were received by the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
    relate to the fiscal year 2010 budget request for programs
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

          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 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 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.

    Common Goals and Accomplishments of AMNH and NASA
        For many years, NASA and AMNH have shared a joint commitment to
    cutting-edge research and the integration of that research into unique
    educational tools and resources. Over the years, the Museum has
    successfully pursued a number of competitive opportunities, has
    cultivated rich relationships with NASA divisions such as the Science
    Mission Directorate's Heliophysics division and the Informal Education
    program, and has worked with the Agency to develop innovative
    technologies and resources that reach audiences of millions in New
    York, across the country, and around the world.
        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.
        In keeping with that mission, 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. One such
    resource, Science Bulletins--immersive multimedia science encounters,
    presenting science news and discoveries in various, flexible formats--
    is already on view in 41 locations across the country (including eight
    NASA visitor centers), with more being added. 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
    6,000 teachers, with millions visiting online.
        In fiscal year 2010, AMNH seeks to build on these successes by
    scaling up to reach even larger audiences with a program to communicate
    current science content--about NASA science and missions in
    particular--to diverse national audiences. The program encompasses:
    Presenting Current Science in Public Spaces: Science Bulletins
        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. We propose the following
    activities:
      --Scaling Up Science Bulletins Dissemination.--In addition to AMNH,
            Science Bulletins is currently on view at 41 subscribing venues
            across the country (including eight NASA visitor centers), with
            annual audiences of more than 13 million. AMNH will continue
            its aggressive dissemination efforts to expand to additional
            sites and increase market penetration.
      --R&D and Program Delivery.--AMNH will develop new visualization
            methods to advance the communication of current science, and
            will utilize them in developing and distributing the Science
            Bulletins program. We will: release approximately 26 bi-weekly
            updates, create six new feature documentaries, and increase
            website visits in the Bulletins focused on the earth, space,
            and biosphere. Science Bulletins DVDs will also be distributed
            in New York City schools.
      --Science Bulletins on the Web.--AMNH will continue to promote the
            Science Bulletins website as a rich resource for formal
            education and educators, providing materials online to
            facilitate classroom use.

    Visualizing and Disseminating Current Science Data
        Visualization of real, large scale datasets into digital
    planetarium shows marks one of the Museum's signature achievements in
    the new era of digital dome technologies. AMNH proposes to draw on its
    unique expertise and capacity in visualizing astrophysics data from
    NASA and other sources to create a new digital space show that will
    engage children, families, and general audiences worldwide.
        The Museum has very successfully leveraged past NASA investments
    with funds from other government and private sources, and will support
    the present project with funds from nonFederal as well as Federal
    sources. The Museum looks forward to continuing to contribute its
    unique resources and capacity to helping the Agency meet its goals.
                                     ______

          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.

    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 AMNH, one of the Nation's preeminent research and education
    institutions, shares NOAA's commitment to these environmental goals and
    to the scientific research and public education that support them.
    Since its founding in 1869, the American Museum has pursued its mission
    of scientific investigation and public education. Its renowned
    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.
        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.
        The goal of all Museum resources and programming is to communicate
    to a broad public of varying ages and backgrounds about basic
    scientific concepts, scientific research, and new discoveries. The
    Museum's exhibition halls and the collections that give them life are
    perhaps the most visible way the Museum fulfills this educational
    mission. The Museum's renovated Hall of Ocean Life, for example, 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. This Hall, together with the Halls of
    Biodiversity, Planet Earth, and the Universe, 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.

    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, recommended in the fiscal year 2007 Senate report, continued
    in fiscal year 2009, 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 $2.5 million in
    fiscal year 2010 to join with NOAA in education, outreach, and research
    activities that promote environmental literacy and knowledge. With the
    requested funds, the Museum will develop and deliver education programs
    and resources that leverage its environmental research programs and
    extend its recent major exhibitions on water and climate change. These
    activities will include presenting current marine- and 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 sustained commitment to the National Science Foundation (NSF).
    Scientific research is critical to the future of our Nation because of
    the important role it plays in technological innovation and economic
    development. Congress recognized the potential of the NSF through
    passage of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which authorized a
    doubling of the agency's budget over several years. However, the NSF
    budget failed to grow at the authorized levels and has fallen behind by
    more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2009. We are grateful that Congress
    remedied this in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    (ARRA), which will provide the NSF with an additional $3 billion over
    the next 2 years. This additional funding will allow the NSF to
    significantly expand its efforts to fund cutting edge research and
    support the scientific enterprise. Investment in research at the NSF
    will not only create jobs and drive economic growth, but will allow us
    to better understand the diversity of life on earth, and how the
    changing environment affects all living things. The APS recommends that
    Congress fully fund the fiscal year 2010 NSF budget request of $7
    billion. This funding combined with the additional funds provided under
    the ARRA will enable NSF to continue to expand our Nation's research
    capacity and achieve the goals envisioned in the America COMPETES Act.
        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 nearly 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 in this testimony, the APS offers its
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2010 budget.
        The basic science initiatives funded by the NSF are driven by the
    most fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. 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. It has been shown time and
    again that the knowledge gained through basic biological research is
    the foundation for more applied studies that lead to improvements in
    the lives of humans, animals and ecosystems.
        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,
    2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Researchers using a genetically engineered strain of lab mice were
            able to show that mutations in a single genetic pathway
            underlie a number of common birth defects that affect heart,
            brain and jaw development.
      --A multi-disciplinary team of investigators using imaging techniques
            to visualize how food moves through the human digestive track
            is learning how the gut is able to efficiently move food
            through the intestines in a way that maximizes nutrient
            absorption.
      --Obesity researchers using powerful DNA sequencing technologies have
            found that bacterial populations present in the human gut are
            different in lean and obese twin pairs.
      --Researchers studying Hantavirus, the virus that caused an outbreak
            of severe respiratory disease in the Southwestern United States
            in 1993, found that older, larger mice are primarily
            responsible for spreading the disease in the deer mouse
            population. Understanding how the virus is spread in carrier
            species is crucial to controlling the future spread of the
            disease to humans.
        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 is proud to have partnered with NSF in this
    program to provide training opportunities and career development
    activities to enhance the participation of underrepresented minorities
    in science. The APS was recognized for these 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.
        The America COMPETES Act and the ARRA demonstrate the strong
    support of Congress for the NSF because of its highly-regarded research
    and education programs. The APS thanks Congress for these votes of
    confidence in the NSF and joins both the Federation of American
    Societies for Experimental Biology and the Coalition for National
    Science Funding to recommend that the agency be funded at the
    Administration's requested level of $7 billion in fiscal year 2010.
                                     ______

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

        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby and Members of the
    Subcommittee: 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 2010. ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA thank Congress for the significant funding ($3 billion) for
    NSF in Public Law 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009. ASA-CSSA-SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
    faces with the tight science budget for fiscal year 2010. 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 critical research through the National
    Science Foundation (NSF). ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend the Subcommittee
    increase fiscal year 2010 funding for NSF by 7.85 percent
    ($509,496,400) over fiscal year 2009 enacted, bringing total funding to
    $7.015 billion, the budget allocated to NSF in the President's fiscal
    year 2010 Budget Request. This strong level of funding will enable NSF
    to continue to fund worthy projects that promote transformational and
    multidisciplinary research, provide needed scientific infrastructure,
    and contribute to preparing a globally engaged science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics workforce.
        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 and Microbial Interactions and Processes program increase
    the understanding of microbial distribution in a variety of
    ecosystems--the first step in evaluating microbial impact on ecosystem
    function. Furthermore, while we agree that considerable advances
    investigating interactions between microbial communities and plants
    have been made, critical gaps do remain requiring additional study to
    understand the complex, dynamic relationships existing between plant
    and microbial communities.
                Biological Infrastructure (DBI)
        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 crops 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.

    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.
                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. EAR supports theoretical
    research, including the biological and geosciences, the hydrologic
    sciences, and the study of natural hazards. An important program funded
    within this division is the Critical Zone Observatories which focuses
    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.

    Engineering Directorate
                Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport
                        Systems (CBET)
        The Environmental Engineering and Sustainability program and its
    Energy for Sustainability sub-program supports fundamental research and
    education in energy production, conversion, and storage and is focused
    on energy sources that are environmentally friendly and renewable. Most
    world energy needs are currently met through the combustion of fossil
    fuels. With projected increases in global energy needs, more
    sustainable methods for energy production will need to be developed,
    and production of greenhouse gases will need to be reduced.

    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 many 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 program offers graduate students interested
    in teaching an opportunity to get into the classroom and teach
    utilizing new innovative methods. Graduate students are the next crop
    of scientists. Therefore opportunities for study must be increased with
    the ever-increasing demands of science. Global problems rely on
    scientific discovery for their amelioration; it is critical that the
    United States continue to be a leader in graduate education. ASA-CSSA-
    SSSA recommend strong support for the Integrative Graduate Education
    and Research Traineeships (IGERT) program. Because education is the key
    for our future competitiveness, it is essential that sustainable, long-
    term support for these and other educational programs be made.
                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, strong funding for this
    program. The program involves partnerships between academic
    institutions and employers to promote improvement in the education of
    science and engineering technicians at the undergraduate and secondary
    school levels.

    NSF-Wide Programs
                Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment
        One of our greatest environmental challenges is to ensure an
    adequate supply and quality of water for human use while maintaining
    the integrity of natural ecosystems. The economic vitality of the
    Nation relies on fresh water for agriculture, energy, manufacturing,
    and other industries. Understanding water dynamics is essential to
    understanding climate and environmental change. At multiple scales of
    time and space, water connects physical, geochemical, biological, and
    ecological processes. Water also links and integrates natural systems
    with human social systems. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support the multi-
    disciplinary, multi-scale research program, Dynamics of Water Processes
    in the Environment.
                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 as
    well.
        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 for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF). The ASM is the largest single life
    science organization in the world with more than 43,000 members. The
    ASM mission is to enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better
    understanding of life processes, and to promote the application of this
    knowledge for improved health and environmental well-being.
        The ASM strongly supports the administration's stated fiscal year
    2010 budget proposal for NSF of $7 billion, an 8 percent increase over
    the fiscal year 2009 appropriation.
        The administration's proposed NSF budget is a critical step toward
    maintaining the nation's global leadership in science and technology.
    Investments in high quality research revitalize economic growth, and
    strong funding for NSF directly boosts innovative basic research across
    the United States. Many priority areas specifically identified in the
    America COMPETES Act of 2007 intersect the broad mission of NSF to
    maintain the vitality of the U.S. academic science and engineering
    enterprise to include enabling university-industry partnerships,
    encouraging interdisciplinary research, and improving funding rates for
    new investigators to strengthen the nation's workforce in science and
    engineering. More than 80 percent of NSF's annual budget is awarded to
    academic researchers, and as a result supports approximately 20 percent
    of all federally funded basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and
    universities.
        We commend Congress for the substantial and much needed NSF funding
    included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the
    Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The need remains, however, for a
    steady and reliable increase of fiscal year appropriations to offset
    the detrimental cuts and loss to inflation in past NSF budgets.
    Sustained NSF funding wields considerable impact on our national
    research endeavor. Each year, NSF supports research by nearly 200,000
    individuals across all fields of science and engineering, at over 1,900
    institutions in all 50 States. NSF currently receives about 45,500
    requests annually for its competitive, peer-reviewed grants, selecting
    roughly 11,500 to receive funding for new multi-year projects. It also
    expends over $400 million each year in professional and service
    contracts, further infusing resources into America's private science
    and technology sectors.
        The NSF promotes innovation across many disciplines, generating
    21st century technological advances to preserve human health and our
    environment. NSF funding keeps the Nation at the leading edge of
    discovery and ensures a skilled technical workforce in the future. The
    NSF's wide-ranging funding portfolio is the foundation for much of the
    nation's enviable success in the biological and physical sciences.
    Support for the Directorate for Biological Sciences
        The ASM is concerned with past low funding levels for NSF's
    Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO.) Although ASM does not have
    details of the administration's budget request for NSF, we recommend an
    fiscal year 2010 funding level of at least $675 million for the BIO
    directorate, a 10 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 level. In
    fiscal yeaar 2008, the overall funding rate for BIO grants was only 16
    percent, which failed to capture the many meritorious research
    opportunities that NSF could have funded with a larger budget. Funding
    rates for BIO research grants have been consistently lower than those
    for NSF as a whole, and the gap between BIO and agency-wide funding
    rates has grown in recent years.
        The NSF provides about two-thirds of Federal support for U.S.
    academic basic research in non-medical biological sciences, a major
    source of funding for research, infrastructure, and education in these
    crucial disciplines. Research supported by the NSF through BIO programs
    is critical for understanding issues of national importance, such as
    sustaining the environment, improving agriculture, or maintaining
    public health and well being. NSF funding is particularly important to
    understand how living organisms, from microbes to humans, function and
    interact with non-living systems. It is also important because the
    physical, mathematical, engineering, and computational sciences
    increasingly use living systems to raise questions and find solutions
    in their respective fields.
        Life sciences are in transition. Traditional disciplines are giving
    rise to multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs, creating new
    research areas that then become new disciplines in their own right.
    Science is constantly changing and NSF is adept at responding to this
    constant transformation, supporting work at the intersection between
    the life and physical sciences. In February, 2009 the NSF directorates
    for biological sciences and geosciences announced a new NSF funding
    emphasis on interdisciplinary research that bridges both areas, to meet
    the challenges of the earth's changing physical and chemical
    environments. BIO supports other scientific disciplines through its own
    funding priorities and through collaborative programs, such as those in
    environmental genomics, biogeochemistry, and biochemical engineering.
    BIO also advances Federal interagency priorities, such as research on
    climate change, and NSF-wide programs, such as Dynamics of Water
    Processes in the Environment, which studies freshwater systems to
    provide solid scientific bases for decision-making about water
    resources.
        Growth in BIO appropriations is essential for progress in the life
    sciences and other allied disciplines, and to sustain the ongoing
    innovation flowing from NSF-supported projects across the United
    States. Last year, academic researchers at the University of Minnesota
    showed that bacteria (Geobactersulfurreducens) can be harnessed to form
    batteries and biosensors; previous and ongoing studies have shown that
    these and other bacteria that produce electrical currents can be used
    to create microbial fuel cells that that wastewater organic compounds
    while producing useful electricity. Other researchers are leveraging
    the fact that each ecosystem contains a particular suite of microbes,
    inventorying the microbial DNA profiles unique to each type of
    ecosystem with the ultimate goal of using microbes as early warning
    systems of a variety of ecological threats.
        It is imperative that NSF has sufficient resources to increase
    competitive awards and research grants that ensure scientists and
    engineers remain involved and generate basic research discoveries. The
    ASM strongly supports increasing BIO funding made available to the
    thousands of post doctorates, senior researchers, graduate students and
    teachers who contribute immeasurably to our collective scientific
    knowledge through BIO programs. Growth in the BIO budget should be
    commensurate with growth in the total NSF budget. ASM, therefore,
    recommends an increase in the BIO budget consistent with that of
    overall NSF increases for Research and Related Activities in fiscal
    year 2010.
    Support for the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)
        The ASM strongly supports the continued BIO-funded effort to expand
    the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and the integration
    of microbial biology into the NEON framework. Such integration promises
    a new and much needed level of understanding of the intricate
    interactions between microbes, ecosystems and climate change. The
    network utilizes state-of-the-art communications between
    instrumentation sites located across the continent, to collect data on
    ecological systems. It creates a unique virtual laboratory to study and
    predict the cause-and-effects between environmental change and
    biological processes. Although ecological forecasting is critically
    important in our changing world, the ASM urges Congress to ensure that
    funding for BIO is expanded sufficiently to support core programs and
    NEON-related initiatives.

    Support for Geosciences, Engineering, Mathematical and Physical
            Sciences
        The ASM supports increased fiscal year 2010 funding for research
    activities at the Geosciences Directorate (GEO), the Engineering
    Directorate (ENG), and the Mathematical and Physical Sciences
    Directorate (MPS).
        Within the Geosciences Directorate, the Division of Earth Sciences
    (EAR) supports research that examines the relationship between living
    systems and the earth's changing physical environment. The Geobiology
    and Low-Temperature Geochemistry Program provide an example of the
    mutually beneficial relationship between biological sciences and
    geosciences. Among other areas, this program studies interactions
    between microbes and economically important resources, and interactions
    among microbes, minerals and groundwater. The program also facilitates
    cross-disciplinary efforts to harness new bioanalytical tools like
    those used in molecular biology. Another EAR-funded effort, the
    Continental Dynamics Program, supports work like the recent discovery
    of microbial contaminants in a 35-million-year-old crater crumbling
    beneath Chesapeake Bay, a potential threat to regional water supplies.
    The ASM supports $178 million in funding for Earth Sciences, 14 percent
    above the fiscal year 2008 level, with an emphasis toward increased
    support for the biological geosciences and ocean sciences funding.
        Of particular interest to ASM, research funded by the Engineering
    Directorate's Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport
    Systems Division (CBET) regularly uses microbial systems to examine
    problems involved in the processing and manufacture of economically
    important products, as well as the efficient utilization of chemical
    resources and renewable bioresources, , and the development of novel
    ways to produce drinking water and wastewater effluents to reduce
    public exposure to pathogens. Much of this work depends on
    bioinformatics originating from genomic and proteomic studies.
    Bioengineering is another cross-cutting research area of impressive
    scope, evidenced by recent development of nanoscopic plastic spheres, a
    type of artificial cell, designed to stimulate human immune cells to
    kill cancer cells. Not only does CBET-funded research contribute
    significantly to our knowledge base, it also helps develop the
    workforce for major U.S. industries like petroleum, pharmaceuticals,
    microelectronics, and medical devices. The ASM supports funding the
    CBET at $173 million, the proposed fiscal year 2009 level. Priority
    applications for the life sciences within CBET include programs with
    great potential to enhance human health: tissue engineering,
    biophotonics, nano-biosystems, and biotechnology, which could lead to
    improved biosensors, biomaterials, and controlled drug release.
        Researchers funded by the Mathematical and Physical Sciences
    Directorate frequently collaborate with other scientific disciplines;
    this cooperation is important for continued progress in physics fields,
    such as studies at molecular and cellular levels. The NSF contributes
    67 percent of Federal support for academic basic research in the
    mathematical sciences and 42 percent in the physical sciences. MPS
    supports interdisciplinary research that greatly benefits both the
    physical sciences and the life sciences, by creating state-of-the-art
    tools and techniques that assist in advancing biological research and
    other disciplines. For example, MPS is a partner in the NSF-wide
    initiative, Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment. The scope
    of MPS activity is enormous, from computational tools for cyberscience
    to understanding how microscopic processes transform the living world.

    Workforce Development and Training
        Support for science and engineering education is an essential part
    of NSF's mission. NSF-funded research is thoroughly integrated with
    formalized education strategies embedded into each NSF program,
    designed to ensure there will always be a skilled workforce to support
    future scientific, engineering and technological fields, as well as a
    robust community of educators to train and inspire coming generations.
    NSF is the second largest Federal supporter of academic research, and
    Congressional appropriations directly strengthen education in science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics. Disappointing funding trends
    in the sciences can be seen clearly in U.S. academic institutions. As
    alternate career paths, non reliant on government funding, are seen as
    more desirable, the number of U.S. students pursing careers in the
    sciences has declined. Foreign student enrollment however has increased
    and the fear is as these students leave the United States their
    departure will create a brain and talent drain, significantly reducing
    the Nation's ability to compete on a global scale. It is critical that
    Congress understand the need to invest adequately for students to
    recognize that science and engineering represent worthwhile career
    paths.

    Conclusion
        Since 1950, it has been the NSF's primary responsibility to
    energize the nation's academic science and engineering enterprise. In
    meeting this mission, NSF has been a powerful motive force in U.S.
    innovation, facilitating research at the frontiers of scientific
    exploration. Consistent and reliable funding support for the NSF is
    necessary to maintain and improve U.S. scientific and economic
    competitiveness on a global scale. Funding essential programs as
    outlined above will remain an urgent priority in the coming years, and
    establishing a base level of $7 billion for fiscal year 2010 will begin
    to recoup serious losses from past budget cuts. Increasing
    appropriations for the NSF should ensure that all areas of science are
    at least adequately funded and that basic science research is
    encouraged and supported. The ASM appreciates the opportunity to
    provide written testimony and would be pleased to assist the
    subcommittee as it considers the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the
    National Science Foundation.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America

    Summary
        The Geological Society of America urges Congress to appropriate at
    least $7.0 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal
    year 2010, an increase of approximately $500 million or 8 percent
    compared to the enacted level in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for
    Fiscal Year 2009. This funding level would uphold the President's
    fiscal year 2010 budget request of $7.0 billion for the National
    Science Foundation. However, it is below the authorized funding level
    of $8.1 billion under the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69).
        The Geological Society of America supports strong and growing
    investments in earth science research at the National Science
    Foundation and other Federal agencies. Substantial increases in Federal
    funding for earth science research are needed to ensure the health,
    vitality, and security of society and for stewardship of Earth. These
    investments in earth science research are necessary to address such
    issues as energy resources, water resources, climate change, and
    natural hazards. Earth science research forms the basis for training
    and educating the next generation of earth science professionals.
        The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
    society with over 22,000 members from academia, government, and
    industry in all 50 States and more than 90 countries. Through its
    meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
    growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
    humankind. GSA encourages cooperative research among earth, life,
    planetary, and social scientists, fosters public dialogue on geoscience
    issues, and supports all levels of earth science education.

    Rationale
        Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity,
    environmental quality, and national security. Federal investment in
    research pays substantial dividends. According to a recent report by
    the National Academies, ``. . . the economic value of investing in
    science and technology has been thoroughly investigated. Published
    estimates of return on investment (ROI) for publicly funded R&D range
    from 20 to 67 percent '' (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007).
        The earth sciences are critical components of the overall science
    and technology enterprise. Substantial increases in Federal funding for
    earth science research are needed to ensure the health, vitality, and
    security of society and for Earth stewardship. Earth science research
    provides knowledge and data essential for developing policies,
    legislation, and regulations regarding land, mineral, and water
    resources at all levels of government. Growing investments in earth
    science research are required to stimulate innovations that fuel the
    economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life.

    Broader Impacts of Earth Science Research and Education
        It is critically important to significantly increase NSF's
    investments in earth science research and education to meet challenges
    posed by human interactions with Earth's natural system in order to
    help sustain these natural systems and the economy. Additional NSF
    investments in earth science research are necessary to address such
    issues as natural hazards, energy, water resources, and climate change.
      --Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions,
            floods, droughts, and hurricanes, remain a major cause of
            fatalities and economic losses worldwide. An improved
            scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future
            losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and
            magnitude.
      --Energy and mineral resources are critical to the functioning of
            society and to national security and have positive impacts on
            local, national, and international economies and quality of
            life. These resources are often costly and difficult to find,
            and new generations of geoscientists need the tools and
            expertise to discover them. In addition, management of their
            extraction, use, and residue disposal requires a scientific
            approach that will maximize the derived benefits and minimize
            the negative effects. Improved scientific understanding of
            these resources will allow for their better management and
            utilization while at the same time considering economic and
            environmental issues. This is particularly significant because
            shifting resource demands often reframe our knowledge as new
            research . . . enabling technologies become available.
      --The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater are
            vital to the well being of both society and ecosystems. Greater
            scientific understanding of these critical resources--and
            communication of new insights by geoscientists in formats
            useful to decision makers--is necessary to ensure adequate and
            safe water resources for the future.
      --Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth's natural
            systems, including climate change, is limited by an incomplete
            understanding of geologic and environmental processes. Improved
            understanding of these processes in Earth's history can
            increase confidence in the ability to predict future States and
            enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse
            impacts to the planet and its inhabitants.
      --Research in earth science is also fundamental to training and
            educating the next generation of earth science professionals.
        Increased NSF investments in earth science education at all levels
    are needed because knowledge of the earth sciences is essential to
    science literacy and to meeting the environmental and resource
    challenges of the twenty-first century.
        Earth science research and education should be a component of
    broader initiatives to increase overall public investments in science
    and technology. For example, earth science research should be included
    in a recommendation by the National Academies to ``increase the Federal
    investment in long-term basic research by 10 percent each year over the
    next 7 years . . .'' (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007).
    Likewise, implementation of the America COMPETES Act, which authorizes
    a doubling of the budgets of key science agencies in 7 years, should
    encompass earth science research and education.
    Extraordinary Scientific Opportunities in the Earth Sciences
        Extraordinary scientific opportunities in the solid earth sciences
    have been summarized by the National Academies and other organizations,
    including the following reports:
      --Basic Research Opportunities in the Earth Sciences (National
            Research Council, 2001)
      --The Geological Record of Biosphere Dynamics (National Research
            Council, 2005)
      --Hydrology of a Dynamic Earth (Consortium of Universities for the
            Advancement of Hydrologic Science, 2007)
      --Future Research Directions in Paleontology (Paleontological Society
            and Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, 2007)
      --Seismological Grand Challenges in Understanding Earth's Dynamic
            Systems (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology,
            2009)
        While the NSF's Earth Sciences Division regularly receives a large
    number of exciting research proposals that are highly rated for both
    their scientific merit and their broader impacts, only a small
    percentage of these have been funded in recent years due to budget
    constraints. Modest additional investments in this research can have
    significant positive impacts. For example, Interferometric Synthetic
    Aperture Radar (InSAR) studies may improve our ability to forecast
    earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Underinvestment in the earth
    sciences may result in lost opportunities and lost lives.
        EarthScope is producing transformative science while being
    developed on time and on budget. The transition of EarthScope expenses
    from NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
    account to the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account is
    occurring at a time when the NSF budget has been nearly stagnant in
    real dollars. When the project was being developed, it was widely
    expected that the NSF budget would experience robust growth as
    indicated by the NSF Authorization Act of 2002, the American
    Competitiveness Initiative, and the America COMPETES Act.
        As a result of budgetary developments beyond its control, members
    of the earth science community are concerned that new expenses for
    EarthScope operations and maintenance may have significant negative
    impacts on other time-sensitive opportunities in the earth sciences.
    The success rate for new proposals in the Earth Sciences Division is
    already too low and new expenses for EarthScope operations and
    maintenance expenses may drive the success rate even lower.

    Conclusion
        President Obama has not submitted a detailed fiscal year 2010
    budget request for the National Science Foundation and therefore we are
    unable to comment on the specifics of his budget proposal at this time.
    The fiscal year 2010 budget request comes at a critical juncture in the
    history of the National Science Foundation. The America COMPETES Act
    set the stage to double the NSF budget in 7 years. Despite overwhelming
    bipartisan support for the America COMPETES Act, funding for NSF fell
    short of the doubling path in the regular appropriations cycles for
    fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. NSF received $3 billion in economic
    stimulus funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This
    one-time injection of funding is very helpful, but NSF needs sustained
    annual funding increases in order to achieve the objectives of the
    legislation.
        The Geological Society of America is grateful to the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Science, Justice, and Related
    Activities for its past leadership in increasing the budget for the
    National Science Foundation and other science agencies. We are also
    grateful to the subcommittee for its leadership in providing $3.0
    billion in stimulus funds for NSF under the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration
    of our request. For additional information or to learn more about the
    Geological Society of America, please visit www.geosociety.org or
    contact Dr. Craig Schiffries at cschiffries@geosociety.org.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
                              Experimental Biology

        On behalf of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental
    Biology (FASEB), I respectfully request an fiscal year 2010
    appropriation for the National Science Foundation (NSF) of $7 billion.
    As you know, NSF is the only Federal research agency dedicated to
    supporting all of fundamental science and engineering, and is the
    principal source of Federal research support in fields such as
    mathematics, computer science and social science.
        As a Federation of 22 professional scientific societies, FASEB
    represents over 90,000 life scientists, making us the largest coalition
    of biomedical research associations in the nation. FASEB's mission is
    to advance health and welfare by promoting progress and education in
    biological and biomedical sciences, including the research funded by
    NSF, through service to its member societies and collaborative
    advocacy. FASEB enhances the ability of biomedical and life scientists
    to improve--through their research--the health, well-being and
    productivity of all people.

    Improving Quality of Life and Fueling the Economy
        ``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.''--Arden Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Testimony of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National
    Science Foundation Before the Senate Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and
    Competitiveness. March 29, 2006. http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/
    bement_032906.pdf. Accessed on November 26, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With less than 5 percent of the Federal research and development
    budget, NSF funds 22 percent of all federally sponsored basic research
    at academic institutions. It is the principal source of Federal
    research support in many fields and provides necessary funding for
    unique, large-scale research facilities.\2\ NSF also plays a
    significant role in advancing medical research: forty-one Nobel Prizes
    have been awarded to NSF-funded scientists for contributions in
    physiology or medicine, including the groundbreaking work that lead to
    the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).\3\ NSF's mission
    is not limited to advancing scientific research: the agency is also
    committed to achieving excellence in science, technology, engineering,
    and math education at all levels. NSF supports a wide variety of
    initiatives aimed at preparing science teachers, developing innovative
    curricula, and engaging students in the process of scientific
    discovery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/about/.
    Accessed November 26, 2008.
        \3\ National Science Foundation (2007). Nobel Prizes--The NSF
    Connection. http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/nobelprizes/
    med.jsp. Accessed November 26, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Advancing Discovery in Science and Engineering
        Each year, NSF 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. Following are just a
    few highlights of the innovative research and education projects
    supported by NSF.
      --Advancing Organ Transplant Technology.--Researchers discovered that
            certain frogs produce an ``anti-freeze'' that prevents their
            cells from being damaged by the chemical changes that occur
            when they are frozen. As a result, these frogs can survive for
            months in freezing weather even though their major organs have
            come almost to a halt. Research in this area may lead to
            technologies that enable human organs to be preserved longer,
            resulting in improved transplantation success rates.
      --Biologically Inspired Nanocapsules.--Basic research on the origin,
            structure, and function of naturally occurring nanocapsules is
            providing scientists with the information necessary to engineer
            these molecules for medically-relevant tasks. These tiny
            capsules may be used to deliver drugs directly to cancer cells,
            correct genetic mutations, or extract toxins from cells.
      --Engineering Safer Metals.--Materials scientists and engineers have
            invented a super-strong and light weight metal foam that
            significantly reduces the force of collisions by absorbing much
            of the energy of the impact. At a fraction of the weight of
            bulk steel, this foam has an array of life-saving safety
            applications in the automobile, aerospace, and health care
            industries.
      --Nurturing the Next Generation of Scientists--One of many NSF
            programs to prepare future scientists, the Integrated Graduate
            Education Research and Training (IGERT) program supports 125
            doctoral degree programs that foster collaborative and
            interdisciplinary training in emerging scientific domains.
            IGERT trainees have produced important scientific and
            technological breakthroughs, including a handheld imaging
            device that can detect breast tumors and ``bio-transformable''
            materials that can be implanted into the body to deliver drugs
            or open blood vessels.

    Investing in the Future
        ``Keeping our competitive edge in the world economy requires
    policies that lay the ground work for continued leadership in
    innovation, exploration, and ingenuity''--Domestic Policy Council.
    American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation,
    2006
        Since its creation in 1950, NSF support for research projects
    across the country has fueled innovation, energized the economy, and
    improved the quality of life for all Americans. NSF's strategic plan
    for the future \4\ will ensure that, even as the global science and
    engineering landscape changes, the United States remains at the
    forefront of the enterprise. In the years ahead, funding for NSF will
    allow the agency to enhance support for the instrumentation,
    facilities, and equipment that scientists need to advance discovery,
    promote transformational, interdisciplinary research projects, and
    foster innovative approaches to science education and training at all
    levels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\  National Science Foundation (2006). Investing in America's
    Future: Fiscal Year 2006-2011. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf0648/
    NSF_06_48.pdf, Accessed October 31, 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are very grateful for the robust investments in NSF provided by
    the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 and the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act (ARRA). We are also grateful for the commitment to NSF
    funding established by the America Creating Opportunities to
    Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Science, and Education
    (COMPETES) act.\5\ It is important that in fiscal year 2010 and future
    years, those investments are sustained and that commitment realized by
    steady and reliable growth for the NSF. For this reason, FASEB supports
    an fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the National Science Foundation
    (NSF) of $7 billion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ H.R. 2272. America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
    Promote Excellence in Technology, Science, and Education (COMPETES).
    August 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives

        Dear Madam Chairman: On behalf of the Institute of Makers of
    Explosives (IME), I am submitting a statement for inclusion in the
    subcommittee's hearing record regarding the proposed fiscal year 2010
    budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF)
    Arson and Explosives (A&E) program.

    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. While we do not have access to the Administration's
    fiscal year 2010 budget request for ATF, we 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). The FEL requires ATF to ``protect interstate and foreign
    commerce,'' \1\ which commerce is the business of the commercial
    explosives industry. This mission seems to be tabled in the agency's
    quest to be a lead terrorist/criminal agency. 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. 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.\2\
    But, our recommendations are often overlooked, and attendant safety and
    security benefits are unrealized. With this perspective, we offer the
    following comments on ATF's budget and program performance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Public Law 91-452, Sec. 1101.
        \2\ 18 U.S.C. 842(j).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adequacy of Budget Resources
        We understand the need of the Obama administration to review and
    modify as appropriate budget requests prepared by the last
    administration. This delay in the release of the bureau's budget
    justification hampers our ability to file detailed comments on the
    adequacy of the budget request for ATF's arson and explosives program.
    With one notable exception, the fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the
    A&E account appears to be that only necessary to sustain current
    services. We question whether a current services budget is sufficient
    for level of engagement and oversight expected of the bureau, not only
    of the private sector, but as has been documented in oversight
    hearings, the bureau's outreach to public sector explosives users.
        The one notable exception is the fiscal year 2009 set-aside of
    $200,000 for the bureau to begin addressing it pending regulatory
    backlog. This backlog remains a source of concern to the regulated
    community. We are grateful to Congress for your oversight of this issue
    and for taking steps to address the problem.

    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.--ATF currently has five open rulemakings of interest
            and concern to the explosives industry, one less than the same
            number of outstanding dockets reported in our comments last
            year. We are disappointed to report that the reduction in the
            number of rulemakings is not due to the bureau finalizing a
            rule. Rather, the reduction is due to the fact that the bureau
            withdrew a rulemaking.\3\ This particular rulemaking was the
            result of a petition filed by industry. The intent of the
            rulemaking was to update and harmonize existing rules. Of the
            remaining rulemaking dockets, the oldest 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 once again, ATF has delayed the projected date
            for finalizing these IFRs until April 2009 and August 2009
            respectively, and has delayed the projected dates for
            finalizing every other open rulemaking of significance to IME
            except one. The one, dealing with the delivery of explosives by
            common or contract carriers, is projected to be finalized this
            month.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ RIN 1140-AA01, withdrawn May 7, 2008. The withdrawal was not
    announced at the time in the Federal Register. Rather, industry was
    informed of the bureau's action over 6 months later when its regulatory
    agenda was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2008.
        \4\ RIN 1140-AA20.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As noted above, Congress has directed the ATF to address these
            long-standing rulemaking concerns. In the absence of rulemaking
            that is capable of keeping up with new developments and
            practices, industry must rely on interpretive guidance and
            variances from rules to conduct business. While we appreciate
            that bureau's accommodations, these stop-gap measures do not
            afford the protections that rulemaking would provide the
            regulated community, nor allow the oversight necessary to
            ensure that all parties are being held to the same standard of
            compliance. 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.
      --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 2006. Last November, we initiated a
            specific information request for any record ATF may have about
            thefts of explosives in transportation last November after
            seeing data from the bureau alleging two incidents and failing
            to verify these incidents from any other source. We are still
            waiting for this information. 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
            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.\5\
            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 full advantage of opportunities to
            partner with IME and accept this or any other 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
            subjective approach ATF may use to address setback issues now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 eight performance indicators that apply to
    its arson and explosives program, and of those, three apply to the
    commercial explosives industry.\6\ Two are statutory requirements to
    investigate explosives thefts and to inspect explosives licensees and
    permittees. The most beneficial indicator, at this time, is that
    reporting on the resolution of unsafe explosives conditions discovered
    by inspections. However, the regulated community has asked for other
    indicators such as the percent of explosives applications acted on
    within 90 days; 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; and turnover rates among agents and inspectors. Yet, ATF has
    not adopted any of these measures. Absent information of this type, it
    is unclear how Congress can effectively oversee ATF's handling of its
    responsibilities toward the regulated community or determine the
    adequacy of its budget request.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ ATF Strategic Plan--Fiscal Years 2004-2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are also concerned at the drop in the performance of the A&E
    program as measured by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).\7\
    During assessment year 2004, the A&E program was rated ``moderately
    effective.'' By 2008, the rating of the A&E program had fallen to
    ``adequate.'' The program's scores fell in all categories:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/
    10002202.2008.html. PART was developed to assess and improve program
    performance so that the Federal Government.

                                  [In percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Section                    Score--2004     Score--2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program purpose & Design................             100              80
    Strategic Planning......................              88              75
    Program Management......................             100              43
    Program Results/Accountability..........              67              40
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To improve the performance of the program, ATF has stated that it
    would conduct independent program evaluations to determine whether the
    program is effective and achieving results. We would welcome an
    independent audit of the program, and believe that the timing for such
    an audit is ripe given the new administration's pledge of transparency
    and accountability.
    Leadership
        The resolution of these issues may have to wait the appointment of
    a new director. The ATF has been without a director since August 2006.
    We hope that an appointment will soon be announced. The bureau has been
    too long without permanent leadership.
    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 Trust for Public Land

        Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony in support of funding for the Coastal
    and Estuarine Land Protection Program (CELCP) administered by the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). My statement
    today urges you to provide funding through the CELCP program to the
    coastal and lake States and the territories at the level of $60 million
    in fiscal year 2010. This funding is necessary to protect the ecologic,
    recreation, historic and aesthetic values and the economic vitality of
    our coastal communities.
        The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land
    conservation organization that conserves land for people to enjoy as
    parks, community gardens, natural and scenic areas, historic sites,
    working landscapes, and other public assets. Since 1972, TPL has worked
    with willing landowners, community groups, and national, State, and
    local agencies to complete more than 4,000 land conservation projects
    that protect more than 2.5 million acres in 47 States and the
    territories. TPL has partnered with NOAA, private landowners, and State
    and local governments on over 50 CELCP-funded coastal land protection
    projects. Since 1988, TPL also has helped States and communities craft
    and pass over 463 ballot measures, generating almost $31 billion in new
    conservation-related funding. These conservation measures provide an
    important source of State and local matching funding for CELCP and
    other federal land protection programs.
        TPL and other non-governmental partners invest our energies,
    funding, and staff in the places where the threats to open spaces are
    most urgent. Not surprisingly, many of those public-private
    conservation partnerships have focused on our Nation's dwindling
    coastal open spaces. Even with the considerable focus on our most
    critical coastal ecosystems and shorelines, we continue to fall farther
    and farther behind in our efforts to help State and local government
    partners protect the coastal open spaces. In recent years, we have
    witnessed an unprecedented pace of resource-damaging development along
    our coastlines. The need for prompt conservation action in these
    sensitive and challenged areas is only increasing. The recent economic
    downturn may well provide a window of opportunity when public
    conservation agencies and partners can better compete and stretch
    limited acquisition dollars further, making this a wise time for
    strategic federal investment in coastal conservation.
        Coastal protection provides many public benefits including
    buffering from storms and floods, filtering pollution and maintaining
    water quality, providing waterfront and coastal access for public
    recreation, supporting fish and shellfish populations important to
    commercial and recreational fisheries, preserving coastal habitats for
    nesting and foraging birds, and securing habitat for native wildlife
    including threatened and endangered species. The CELCP program is the
    only Federal program dedicated exclusively to helping coastal
    communities protect their natural and recreational heritage. CELCP is
    essential federal funding, that allows State and local governments, and
    their private conservation partners, to respond effectively to coastal
    conservation needs. The recent NOAA eligibility requirement that each
    coastal State develop a Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan
    helps ensure that both federal and non-federal dollars are being
    smartly targeted and wisely spent.
        The spiraling development pressures upon our Nation's coastal zone
    are obvious and well documented. Since 1970, coastal areas have
    experienced steady increases in population. According to NOAA, coastal
    counties constitute only 17 percent of the Nation's land areas, but
    account for 53 percent of its populations--a population density five
    times greater than non-coastal counties. According to the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy, ``more than $1 trillion, or one-tenth of
    the Nation's annual gross domestic product, is generated within the
    relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast that
    we call the nearshore zone. When the economies throughout coastal
    watershed counties are considered, the contribution swells to over $45
    trillion, fully half of the Nation's gross domestic product, accounting
    for some 60 million jobs.'' The health of our coasts is inextricably
    linked with the economic health of the Nation.
        In 2002, Congress stepped in to respond to that need and enhance
    the Federal role within the Federal-State coastal conservation
    partnership by creating the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
    Program (CELCP) to protect ``those coastal and estuarine areas with
    significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or
    aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their
    natural or recreational States to other uses.'' Authorized at $60
    million annually, funding for the program grew from an initial $15
    provided in fiscal year 2002, to a high of $50 million in 2004, before
    declining each subsequent year to a low of $8 million in fiscal year
    2008. Despite its uneven funding history, the CELCP program has built
    an impressive track record. To date, the over $200 million provided by
    Congress for the CECLP program has funded over 150 conservation
    projects in 26 of the Nation's coastal States and territories helping
    to protect approximately 35,000 acres. This Federal funding has been
    leveraged by at least an equal amount of State, local and private
    matching investments, demonstrating the broad support for the program,
    the importance of coastal protection, and the critical role of Federal
    funding to accelerate coastal protection. Inclusion of the Coastal and
    Estuarine Land Protection Act in the recently passed H.R. 146, the
    Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, formally codifies CELCP
    and recognizes the program's achievement and significance.
        In 2007, by directive from this subcommittee, NOAA instituted a
    competitive grants selection process for the CELCP program. The CELCP
    team at NOAA has done an impressive job of managing this transition and
    creating a thorough competitive grants process. In the last 3 years,
    NOAA, in partnership with the States, has identified over $230 million
    of vetted and ranked projects. While we support the competitive nature
    of the program, full funding at $60 million annually is needed to meet
    the demand of increasingly high-quality projects being developed by
    States with other partners and submitted to NOAA. We were pleased to
    see the program funding increased to $15 million in fiscal year 2009,
    reversing a 5-year funding decline. However, this will only fund the
    first eight or so of the 43 competitively ranked projects in fiscal
    year 2009, meeting a fraction of the total project need of $63 million.
        The CELCP program is the only Federal program dedicated exclusively
    to helping coastal communities protect their natural and recreational
    heritage. CELCP provides essential Federal funding that allows State
    and local governments, and their private conservation partners, to
    respond effectively to coastal conservation needs. Perhaps the best way
    to underscore the critical value of this program to the American people
    is to provide some examples of the projects seeking funding in fiscal
    year 2010:

    Lapakahi Marine Life Conservation District (MLCD), Hawaii County,
            Hawaii
        CELCP funding will protect the last privately held property
    fronting the Lapakahi MLCD on the North Kohala coast of the big island
    of Hawaii. This 17.05-acre tract includes 200 feet of shoreline and
    will connect a total of 1.75 miles of publicly held coastline and
    protect habitat for the threatened green sea turtle and the endangered
    Hawaiian monk seal. The requested $1.25 million from the Hawaii Legacy
    Land Conservation Fund Program will match CELCP funding in the amount
    of $1.25 million.

    Magnolia Hill Conservation Project, Massachusetts
        The City of Gloucester, The Trust for Public Land, The Trustees of
    Reservations, and Essex County Greenbelt Association are working to
    protect the 109-acre Magnolia Hill property in the coastal area of
    Essex County, MA. This upland habitat overlooking Gloucester Harbor
    represents an intact Oak-Hemlock-White Pine forest and wooded swamp
    supporting the State-listed Blue spotted Salamander and State-
    endangered Sweetbay Magnolia. The property drains into a 12-acre tidal
    coastal salt pond, Clark Pond, and connects 1,270 acres of contiguous
    protected coastal zone habitat. $3 million in CELCP funding will be
    matched by an equal amount of State, local and private funds.
    Harsens Island Conservation Area, Lake St. Clair, Michigan
        The 547-acre Harsens Island Conservation Area lies at the heart of
    the St. Clair flats--the largest freshwater delta in the world. Located
    on both the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways, migratory waterfowl use
    of these coastal waters and wetlands has historically reached three
    million annually. Protection will enhance public access for recreation,
    eliminate the threat of development, and protect sensitive coastal
    habitat. $7 million in Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund dollars
    will match a $3 million CELCP grant.

    Houghton Falls Nature Preserve, Lake Superior, Bayview Township,
            Wisconsin
        Seventy-seven acres on the Bayfield Peninsula with 2,230 feet of
    Lake Superior shoreline will be protected as a Bayfield town park. This
    rare boreal forest habitat contains numerous species of concern
    including the Gray Wolf, Northern Flying Squirrel, Woodland Jumping
    Mouse, and Water Shrew. The property is an important stopover for
    Neotropical migratory birds, and a fish nursery for Lake superior
    whitefish and other species. A $1.423 million CELCP grant will be
    equally matched with funding from the Wisconsin Knowles-Nelson
    Stewardship Fund.

    Kiket Island Addition to Deception Pass State Park, Phase II, Skagit
            County, WA
        A $3 million CELCP grant will purchase the final 40 acres of the
    Kiket Island project in northern Puget Sound to protect a total of 96
    acres of high quality coastal habitat and over two miles of shoreline
    threatened. Kiket Island is an intact, intertidal zone with all eight
    species of Puget Sound anadromous fish, including the endangered
    Chinook salmon and bull trout. The forested portion of Kiket Island
    provides excellent habitat for bird, including owls, and other native
    wildlife. A $3 million CELCP grant will be matched with $3.431 million
    from Washington State Parks.

    Ayers Creek-Holly Grove Swamp, Worcester County, Maryland
        To be protected are 431 acres along Ayers Creek within the waters
    of Newport Bay and the larger Maryland Coastal Bays area. The property,
    including one-half mile of tidally influenced shoreline, will be added
    to the State's Ilia Fehrer Nature Reserve. The forested wetlands are
    important habitat for eleven State and/or federally listed species. $1
    million from Maryland Program Open Space and $250,00 from Worcester
    County Program Open Space Funds will match $1.25 million in CELCP
    funding.

    Keewaydin Island, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
            Florida
        TPL is working in partnership with the State of Florida to protect
    five crucial acres of beach front within and adjoining the Rookery Bay
    National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR). The RBNERR protects the
    largest and most pristine subtropical mangrove estuary in the world,
    with over 150 species of wading, nesting and migratory birds, and
    numerous threatened and endangered species including the Atlantic
    loggerhead sea turtle, gopher tortoise, least tern, piping plover, and
    West Indian manatee. $1.5 million from the Florida Forever Program will
    match a $1.5 million CELCP grant.

    San Miguel Natural Reserve III, Puerto Rico
        Fiscal year 2010 CELCP funding will complete the final phase of
    this 601-acre coastal land protection effort at the San Miguel Natural
    Reserve on the northern coast of Puerto Rico. One of the last
    ecologically functional wetlands together with an undeveloped coastal
    shoreline, this area is home to forty-two critical species, including
    nesting grounds for the federally listed Leatherback sea turtle. A $3
    million CELCP grant, matched by a land value donation from the
    landowner, will protect the final 179 acres.
        These several examples are just a small representation of the
    breadth and depth of CELCP program needs for the coming year across our
    Nation's coastal geographies and communities. In closing, The Trust for
    Public Land urges you to provide full funding of the CELCP program at
    the authorized level of $60 million in fiscal year 2010 for this
    critically important program. This level of Federal commitment is
    necessary to meet the demonstrated program need and to position NOAA to
    be fully responsive to the many State and local governments and private
    partners working together to protect our coastal heritage. Thank you.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statements of.....203, 204
    American Physiological Society, Prepared Statement of............   205
    American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of.........   209
    American Society of Agronomy, Prepared Statement of..............   206

    Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Question
      Submitted by...................................................   201

    Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of...........   206

    Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   214

    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of.............   211

    Holder, Hon. Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, Department of
      Justice........................................................    51
        Prepared Statement of........................................    56
        Statement of.................................................    54

    Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of.........   215

    Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
      Question Submitted by..........................................    86
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    26
    Locke, Hon. Gary F., Secretary, Secretary of Commerce, Department
      of Commerce....................................................     1
        Statement of.................................................     6

    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Statements of....................................1, 51, 105
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    23
        Statement of.................................................   175
    Mueller, Hon. Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of
      Investigation, Department of Justice...........................   175
        Prepared Statement of........................................   181
        Statement of.................................................   179
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    50

    Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    29

    Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   197

    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    28

    Scolese, Christopher J., Acting Administrator, National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration...........................   105
        Prepared Statement of........................................   115
        Statement of.................................................   113
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................30, 87
        Prepared Statement of........................................   110
        Statements of.......................................3, 53, 108, 177
    Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of...........   206

    The Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statement of.................   218

    Voinovich, Senator George V., U.S. Senator From Ohio:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   112
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    47
        Statement of.................................................   111

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

                                                                       Page

    Accomplishing the Census.........................................    13
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    23
    Basic Fisheries Science..........................................    22
    Broadband Technology Opportunity Program.........................    17
    Business Incubators..............................................    17
    Census:
        Changes to Decennial Census in Fiscal Year 2009..............    41
        Management Challenges........................................11, 12
        Partnerships.................................................    14
    Commerce Employees...............................................    11
    Development of Sustainable Seafood...............................    16
    Digital to Analog Converter Box Coupon Program...................    18
    EDA:
        Peer Reviewed Evaluation Process.............................    47
        Trade Adjustment Assistance..................................    28
    Economic Assistance to Fisheries.................................    19
    Electronic Log Books on the Gulf Shrimp Fleet....................    30
    FBI Background Checks............................................    13
    Funding for the Denali Commission................................    21
    ITA:
        Expanding U.S. Exporting.....................................    45
        Promoting U.S. Exports.......................................    49
        US&FCS.......................................................    26
    International Trade..............................................    16
    Larvae Sample Analysis...........................................    32
    NIST.............................................................    38
    NOAA.............................................................30, 50
        Satellites...................................................    15
    NTIA:
        BTOP/Targeting Rural Areas...................................26, 29
        Competing for BTOP funds.....................................    28
        ICANN........................................................    46
    Ocean Acidification..............................................    23
    Recruiting for Temporary Census Jobs.............................    20
    Refocusing on Department of Commerce Mission.....................    10
    Satellites.......................................................    15
    Sustainable Management of Fisheries..............................    22
    USPTO............................................................    23
        STOP! Initiative.............................................    47

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    82
    Agent Certifications.............................................   101
    Arms Trafficking Across the Southwest Border.....................    65
    ATF Canine Training..............................................    88
    Assistance to State and Local Partners...........................    72
    Border Czar......................................................    92
    Confirmation of Dawn Johnsen.....................................    82
    Coordination Between DOJ and DHS.................................    77
    COPS:
        Funding......................................................    86
        Program......................................................    70
    Computer Digital Forensics.......................................    99
    DEA Title 21 Authority...........................................    95
    Determinations to Transfer Detainees.............................    63
    Disposition of Detainees.........................................    62
    DOJ Legal Authority..............................................    90
    Drug Intelligence Information....................................    76
    Expiring Provisions of the Adam Walsh Act........................    90
    Explosives:
        Grenade Tracing Resources in Mexico..........................    88
        Trafficking in Mexico........................................    87
    FBI:
        Criminal Investigative Abilities.............................    97
        Forensics....................................................    97
    Federal and State Partnerships Targeting Foreclosure Scams and
      Loan Modification Fraud........................................    59
    Funding for Closure of Guantanamo Bay............................    85
    GAO Study........................................................    93
    Grantmaking to State and Local Governments.......................    78
    Gun Violence.....................................................    68
    IG Report on the Terrorist Watch List............................    79
    Implementing the President's Executive Orders to Close Guantanamo    58
    Influenza........................................................    90
    Intellectual Property............................................    94
        Enforcement..................................................    84
    Interrogation Techniques.........................................    75
    Investigation of Interrogations..................................    66
    Juvenile Justice Programs........................................    73
    Law Enforcement Wireless Communications..........................    95
    Methamphetamine..................................................   100
    NAS Study........................................................   102
    NIBIN:
        Ballistics...................................................    91
        Project Gunrunner, and Ballistics Imaging....................    77
    National Security: Counter-Terrorism Efforts Since 9/11..........    57
    New FOIA Guidelines and Resources................................    85
    Office of:
        Legal Counsel--OPR Report and Johnsen Nomination.............    86
        Professional Responsibility Inquiry..........................    66
    Patriot Act Reauthorization Unanswered Letter Asking for
      Proposals......................................................    86
    Peer to Peer Child Pornography Groups............................    98
    Prosecutor Discretion............................................    68
    Racial Profiling.................................................    69
    Review of Detainee Cases.........................................    60
    Second Chance:
        Act..........................................................    93
        Duplication..................................................    94
    Southwest Border:
        Initiative...................................................    71
        Violence.....................................................    57
    State Secrets Doctrine...........................................    81
    Student Loan Repayment Program...................................   102
    Supplemental Funding--Guantanamo Bay.............................    89
    Training of Prosecutors..........................................   102
    Treatment of Terrorism Suspects..................................    67
    Unified Financial Management System..............................    59
    Violent Crime/Support of Local Law Enforcement...................    83

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   197
    Criminal.........................................................   183
    Cyber............................................................   182
    Infrastructure...................................................   184
    Intelligence.....................................................   182
    Technology.......................................................   183
    2010 Budget Request..............................................   181

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    Acquisition Process..............................................   165
    Ares-V.........................................................127, 128
    Cost Overruns....................................................   128
    Fiscal Year 2009 Recovery Act Spend Plan.........................   127
    Global Climate Change............................................   134
    Hubble:
        Contributions................................................   172
        Repair Mission...............................................   171
        Space Telescope..............................................   166
    Human Spaceflight................................................   125
    NASA:
        Education Program..........................................161, 163
        Educational Efforts..........................................   161
        Spend Plan...................................................   126
    Practical Applications...........................................   133
    Retention........................................................   131
    Science..........................................................   132
    Section 505 of the Omnibus.......................................   127
    Shuttle Workforce Transition Plan................................   130
    Soyuz............................................................   125
    Space Shuttle:
        Atlantis Testimony...........................................   170
        Crew Introduction............................................   168
    Ten Healthy Center Concept.......................................   130
    The Astronaut Experience.........................................   170
    U.S.-Russia Partnership..........................................   129

                                       -